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) |
|
CCP Wrangler
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 10:50:00 -
[1]
Making changes to EVE can be an easy or a difficult task, and a change that one person likes might not be palatable to someone else. However, these changes are made with the overall game in mind.
Zulupark makes his introductory Dev Blog from his new position in the Game Design team. Following in the footsteps of TomB and Tuxford, Zulu is now working on balancing different elements of EVE and one of the first projects he gets to work on is the relationship between Supercapitals, Fighters and Drones. Be gentle on him, he's got a tough one!
Fighters, Drones, Supercapitals and control. What's being considered? Check out Capital ships in EVE, what's up doc?.
Wrangler Community Manager EVE Online, CCP Games Email/Netfang
"The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it." |
|
|
Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises Otherworld Empire
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:02:00 -
[2]
Interesting times ahead...
Secure 3rd party service. |
|
Stellar Vix
State War Academy
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:02:00 -
[3]
Second!
SWA PVP |
Hairtrigger
Sanguine Legion
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:04:00 -
[4]
Oh dear
|
Bentula
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:07:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Bentula on 21/10/2007 11:08:43 I am atm training for carriers, and i can only say that this is how i always envisioned them to be. Extremely proficant support ships, that increase the efficency of the gang it is with.
Edit: What worries me though is that assigning fighters could become much of a hassle, i.e. with people dieing and warping out you find yourself doing nothing but delegating fighters.
|
Erdiere
Minmatar Erasers inc. Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:08:00 -
[6]
Limiting the amount of normal drones to 5 from a ship like carrier sounds a bit too much.
At the very beginning of my EvE career it was crystal clear for me what to do and were to go. Then the tutorial ended.
|
Mashie Saldana
Minmatar Hooligans Of War Insurgency
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:08:00 -
[7]
Sweet, this is definitely a move in the right direction.
Jita fix: The distributed market hub
|
Marrie Antionette
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:09:00 -
[8]
does the 5 not include drone control links?
|
Dan Grobag
Caldari Oyster Colors
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:10:00 -
[9]
10 normal drone was cool for doing all sort of stuff. What about drone control unit ?
|
dutchfighter
Chickens with an Attitude
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:12:00 -
[10]
I personally think this COULD be a nice idea, but it needs some serious look at the prices of fighters. I personally fly a carrier for about 11 months now and i have never asigned fighters to a gangm8. Simply because i am not gonna let somebody play with my 100M if those little things get destroyed in seconds. In 0.0 i can see how it works, but as low sec pirate, nah. Sentries kill those things way to fast to let other peepz play with them.
The idea is okay, but if prices of fighters will not be lowered it will become a isk-sink for low sec carrier pilots.
|
|
Emsigma
Contraband Inc. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:13:00 -
[11]
My question is why anyone would field a mothership instead of a carrier if those changes make it?
It seems to be totally brainless, if that is the case, since the amount of firepower will be the same and the amount of remote rep/shield transfers/etc will be the same as a carrier. It will basically mean that it will make a mothership about 30 times more expensive than a carrier and have exactly the same function in every single aspect.
When taking a look at the assigning potential aspect of carriers/motherships it again doesnt make sense as battleships allready have their drone bays as well as almost all cruisers that are short/medium range (drone range) and this will not have any use for the fighters (since they allready have their own drones). The only shipclass that you would want to assigning fighters to are frigs/interceptors, that are so flimsy that you will most likely not have time to assign fighters fast enough in a fleet condition. Add to this that a carrier exteremly seldom have time to lock a gang mate to rep them before they pop as it is.
I conclusion, in theory this is a great idea but converted to practice, it only renders motherships totally useless (compared to a carrier) and carriers almost useless (unless you boost scan resolution to like 1000mm so that they can instalock friendlies in need of reppage) ---
|
Rodamus Zero
Gallente Nova Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:13:00 -
[12]
Why not simply increase the signature resolution and decrease tracking on Fighters.
That would mean they become much more anti capital drones (seeing as they are the only carriers/Moms defense agaisnt other capitals save for support) and have a slightly harder time agaisnts battleships and anything smaller.
If a carrier is unable to punch out all 15 drones (for instance) what does this do for logistics and combat utility drones such as webber drones and target painter drones.
Another point on fighters directly, why do they have the same sized signature radius as heavy drones when they are clearly much bigger in size? given the fact that an increase would make them alot more vunerable to any type of offensive attack, it just seems strange that they are the same and dont fall inline with Light/Scouts < Medium < Heavies.
If its only Fighters/Drones and Supercaps that are being looked at, how would the new ships and modules coming in REV 3 effect them? Speculations aside, though it appears that they alone could possible change the face of capitals, let alone Supercaps. -
Tell Them, Zero was Here. |
Jo0n
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:16:00 -
[13]
I like it.
Should stop the empire Moms being such a pain in the ass too.
|
Mashie Saldana
Minmatar Hooligans Of War Insurgency
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:16:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Dan Grobag 10 normal drone was cool for doing all sort of stuff. What about drone control unit ?
I would guess they only will affect the number of fighters you can assign and not affect the number of normal drones at all.
Jita fix: The distributed market hub
|
Law Enforcer
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:18:00 -
[15]
just increase the cost of a carrier/mom if you want less people to be flying around in them. nerfing them to five fighters is just a bad idea. what happens if the support fleet gets wiped out and you have four/six battleships on you and you KNOW you could have killed them. but you magically cannot control more then five fighters even though a carrier should have the logistic capabilities to run an entire city because ccp says so. it defeats the role of a carrier. a carrier is a platform to launch and control all of its fighters and if it can't do that you better rename them to something else.
|
Zakgram
Atomic Heroes The OSS
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:18:00 -
[16]
I've been watching the growing replacement of battleships in gangs with carriers and we jokingly refer to it as capital-online.com.
This should make it less a "how many capitals can we field" and more a "for each capital we field we'll need proper support".
Good.
|
Evil Sniper
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:19:00 -
[17]
Booo, may aswell sell up the carrier then...
|
Pattern Clarc
Reikoku
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:19:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Pattern Clarc on 21/10/2007 11:22:40
Looks like goons are gunna get there way again....
Sig removed lacks EVE content, email [email protected] if you have any questions - Xorus |
Pattern Clarc
Reikoku
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:21:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Pattern Clarc on 21/10/2007 11:21:37 If you take from the carriers in this way, atleast give them higher cap recharge (say, 20% more) - so, you know, they can actually run there reps and stuff without capping out after 5 minutes? Sig removed lacks EVE content, email [email protected] if you have any questions - Xorus |
Alikaraa
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:21:00 -
[20]
This idea is absolutely and utterly ********.
Motherships are now useless. Carriers do the exact same job, and are a hell of a lot cheaper.
Why does CCP feel the incessent need to nerf anything, that the vocal minority whine about repeatedly? I'm somewhat concerned with them following the ideals of those whom are quite vocal on the forums.
First Titans, now Motherships.
|
|
Emsigma
Contraband Inc. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:22:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Zakgram I've been watching the growing replacement of battleships in gangs with carriers and we jokingly refer to it as capital-online.com.
This should make it less a "how many capitals can we field" and more a "for each capital we field we'll need proper support".
Good.
In one sense you are right, that more people fly capital ships when they can, but at the same time in 100% of the cases that I have been in an MC cap fleet and we have chosen not to engage something it has never ever been because we have had to few capital ships and every single time it has been because we didnt have a support fleet to match the enemies.
In short, there needs to be a limiting factor so that you cant run 100% carriers and nothing else, but to gimp their MAIN ROLE is, imho, absolutely counter propductive. I guess what will happen is that people will melt down all the carriers and motherships and build titans instead and then youll face 20vs20 titans instad, and I promise you that that will be MUCH more boring. ---
|
Caiman Graystock
The Caldari Confederation
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:24:00 -
[22]
CCP Zulupark: (I still haven't received a nerfbat though).
I think you just got the biggest one in the office with this blog...
|
Phoenus
Caldari Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:25:00 -
[23]
Edited by: Phoenus on 21/10/2007 11:25:49 I'm somewhat concerned with the direction that CCP seems to be taking with this, to be honest.
You are taking away what little fun remains in this game. Solo/small scale PVP is almost none existant. Titans are nerfed beyond recognition, and now you are considering doing the same for Carriers/Motherships.
Are you trying to encourage blobbing, by appeasing the small number of whiners on the forums?
EDIT: Bad spelling
|
DRDNOUGHT
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:33:00 -
[24]
Guys.... we are talking about carriers here yes ? 10 times the price of a typical battleship.... months more of skill training.... the whole point of a carrier is its superior fighter and drone carrying power as well as its support capabilities. If it is to be stepped down to just a support vessel, I as well as many others Im sure, are going to have to rethink its value when compared with the training time required as well as the large ISK investment. A carrier is a tactical vessel first and a support vessel second and we cant go nerfing It because it is successful at what it was designed to do. If We need to change the balance then we need to do the same as we would do in the real world when faced with a superior weapon.....invent something that can disable it easier.......
|
ZaKma
Seraphin Technologies Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:33:00 -
[25]
You keep claiming you want to encourage small scale pvp, yet every single change you make keeps encouraging blobbing.
So now instead of nice cap vs cap fights while the support fights it out on their own, you'll have 50 capitals and 500 support on grid. Every carrier / mom will be assigning fighters to their gang members. The current hardware can't even handle the current state of eve, let alone if every ship in a fleet fight has fighters assigned and starts sending them around.
This also directly nerfs carrier's firepower in comparison to other capital ships. If you do this, then let carriers fit capital guns and give them a damage bonus (obviously not as much as a sieged dread) and better tracking.
Also, this is not balancing. I don't care what you say. This is a fundamental change in how a ship works, completely changing it's current use and tactics. Doing such a change would be fine a week or a month after releasing them.. but not after so long.
|
Easy Kill
Minmatar Rens 911
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:33:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Phoenus Edited by: Phoenus on 21/10/2007 11:25:49 I'm somewhat concerned with the direction that CCP seems to be taking with this, to be honest.
You are bringing back fun for those that cant fly capital ships. Solo/small scale PVP is awesome but I can't do it because I cant take my cap ship in empire where the wardecs are. Titans are now able to be countered, and now you are considering doing the same for Carriers/Mothership blobs.
Are you trying to encourage balance, by appeasing the people who actually have common sense on the forums?
EDIT: Bad spelling
Fixed it up some more for you.
|
NUBIARN
THEM. Praesidium Libertatis
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:34:00 -
[27]
i try not to whine at changes but seriously i think this would be a terrible change to make to carriers and motherships.
there is alot of personal training and cost assosicated with getting and flying a carrier, some of us skilled up so we could field 10 fighters.
i`m sure this change is just a result from whineage about motherships pwning stuff in low sec, well think of a different solution rather than nerfing the rest of the carrier and mom ship pilots because of a few.
oh and whilst your at it please look at the triage module because at the moment all it is a cap wasting module, maybe reduce all capital shield, amour and cap transfer cap useage amounts by a considerable amount then the carrier will be used for logistics and then and only then would a fighter delegation nerf be remotely fine
|
DeadDuck
Amarr Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:34:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Law Enforcer Edited by: Law Enforcer on 21/10/2007 11:32:53 instead of making them useless like you made titans.
|
Scavok
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:34:00 -
[29]
The problem is the lag fighters generate making it impossible to counter them since the most effective tactics require a lot of micromanagement, not the fighters themselves. 5 fighters are still going to kill a typical 0.0 sniping battleship in around a minute when he's unable to warp, rep, be remote repped, smartbomb, lock, shoot, or put drones on the fighters that are killing him. This really fixes nothing.
|
LaVista Vista
Corporate Research And Production Pty Ltd Zzz
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:35:00 -
[30]
Ways i can see it go:
Less solo wtfpwn carrier and moms. At least in 0.0
In low-sec it doesnt matter. Fighters die pretty fast under sentry fire, so there it doesnt make a difference, because chances are the pilot doesnt use them.
It will encourage more blobs. If people want to field a carrier, they will just bring another 2 guys. Thats 200% increase.
The way proposed is the way a carrier should be. But it wont fix the overall problem.
|
|
Yggdrassil
STK Scientific M. PIRE
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:36:00 -
[31]
Not quite sure I like this idea at all, but...
If you push through with it - you might want to look at the abilities of carriers to lock friendly ships for repairing them, along with locking times.
Having a few super logistics ships on the field don't help much when you're damped and jammed to hell and back...
Yggdrassil |
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong Namtz'aar k'in
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:36:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Caiman Graystock I can totally understand the want for cap/supercaps not be solowtfpwn machines, really- but is this yet another change which makes it harder for the smaller guys? Everything seems to be going in favour of the large corps/alliances who can take on board a nerf like this and field massive support fleets. The rich get richer...
massive as in....3 people... ROFL.
----------------------------------- I'm working my way through college target CCP need...more room... |
CaldFighter
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:37:00 -
[33]
While the idea might look good on scribbled matchbox down the pub, i really don't think this is pratical.
too many what if's... and what about the logistics of repair drones if you can only use a max of 5
Someone nerf them damn wow players
|
Zeus
Amarr Evolution Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:38:00 -
[34]
This will essentially turn carriers and motheships into logistics only ships, no mothership pilot flys around with 3 buddys at all times to help it out in case it gets into trouble. Your essentially taking away its ability to defend it self and its 10bn value over a carrier. Other than holding more ship and I'm sure wed love to pay 10bn for that.
if this happens there will be a yard somewere where all the motherships in the game are sold of for cheap to rot because you cant refine them and the only supercap worth building will be titan's, which atleast can defend them selves if pushed......
|
Tetsujin
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:38:00 -
[35]
Does this change come in conjunction with altering fighter code to reduce the amount of lag they create, or is this your theorized resolution to that problem?
|
Miriyana
Gallente Legions of Derek
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:39:00 -
[36]
you have no friends sir. no friends. - - - - - - Change just leads to more problems
Originally by: CCP Wrangler Oh please no, I've had enough with real world taxes, and dealing with the tax agency. No more taxes!!
|
Feng Schui
Minmatar The Ninja Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:39:00 -
[37]
Edited by: Feng Schui on 21/10/2007 11:41:28
pilgrim.
energy neutralizer capacitor.
powergrid.
capacitor amount.
cargo hold.
these are the things i'm worried about
as far as carriers, why not have the ability to have 5 drones / fighters per group, can deploy any amount you currently can, but can only control 1 drone group at a time.
Ex:
Launch 20 Drones in space. 4 Drone Groups. Then you can control only 1 group at a time.
edit: even having a limit: 1 drone group on any given target at a time. (Instead of 20 fighters on 1 target, you can have 5 fighters, on 4 different targets -> based on drone groups).
other than that, I will add nothing to this thread. |
Daveydweeb
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:39:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Scavok The problem is the lag fighters generate making it impossible to counter them since the most effective tactics require a lot of micromanagement, not the fighters themselves. 5 fighters are still going to kill a typical 0.0 sniping battleship in around a minute when he's unable to warp, rep, be remote repped, smartbomb, lock, shoot, or put drones on the fighters that are killing him. This really fixes nothing.
I don't think it fixes lag at all, but it certainly fixes (or nearly fixes) lowsec motherships. People are look at this in the wrong sort of context.
Of course, you're correct that CCP's fighter code is still ludicrous, but this change doesn't appear to be an attempt to change that. *snip* sig removed due to it containing nothing relating to eve or the character - hutch |
Miriyana
Gallente Legions of Derek
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:40:00 -
[39]
Edited by: Miriyana on 21/10/2007 11:40:11 oh btw, except fleet support what's the point of flying a carrier as opposed to a moros now?
thanks -_- - - - - - - Change just leads to more problems
Originally by: CCP Wrangler Oh please no, I've had enough with real world taxes, and dealing with the tax agency. No more taxes!!
|
Phoenus
Caldari Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:40:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Easy Kill
Fixed it up some more for you.
Poor attempt at trolling. I don't have, nor can fly - capital ships.
This is not 'balance'. This is utter ******ation.
Now shoo elsewhere.
|
|
Sylia
Minmatar Hooligans Of War Insurgency
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:41:00 -
[41]
GOOOOOOOO CCP luving this idea. Cap warefare sucks, this is a godo step in reducign its gank factor
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:41:00 -
[42]
Does seem to be adding unnecessary micro-management. what's to stop the carrier/mom from launching 5 -> attack target, launch 5 -> attack target.
While its true that carriers seem to be the new battleship in fleet engagements making them virtually ineffectual against their primary predator is counter-productive.
The suggestion of focusing the fighters themselves on damaging capital appears workable. Put in a module the carrier can use to increase effectiveness against battleships and below (like drone tracking links) .. this will allow the pilot to sacrifice tank to deal damage, like every other ship currently does :)
Can't wait to see what the DEVs cook up in relation to drone bandwidth though, lot of potential for drone/fighter tweakage in that I think.
|
ArmyOfMe
hirr Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:41:00 -
[43]
Im not sure if you have noticed, but a lot of times carriers gets bumped out of docking range, and you will now take away their only defence against the attacking force.
Even carrier pilots cant expect to have a fleet guarding whenever they want to jump to other systems. Im sorry, but these changes will not in any way help on 0,0 warfare at all.
|
Grytok
HighTech Research
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:42:00 -
[44]
Uhm... err...
Yay, finally CCP is going towards EvE Online again
Capital Online was interesting in the beginning, but 2 Carriers solo-camping a gate is just... meh.
Carriers and Moms should've been Fleet-Support-Ships from the very beginning. If you want to fly oversized battleships, then jump into Dreads and web and targetpaint the BS to instapop them.
Good ideas, make them happen! .
|
Jakiri
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:42:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Daveydweeb
Originally by: Scavok The problem is the lag fighters generate making it impossible to counter them since the most effective tactics require a lot of micromanagement, not the fighters themselves. 5 fighters are still going to kill a typical 0.0 sniping battleship in around a minute when he's unable to warp, rep, be remote repped, smartbomb, lock, shoot, or put drones on the fighters that are killing him. This really fixes nothing.
I don't think it fixes lag at all, but it certainly fixes (or nearly fixes) lowsec motherships. People are look at this in the wrong sort of context.
Of course, you're correct that CCP's fighter code is still ludicrous, but this change doesn't appear to be an attempt to change that.
Are lowsec motherships really that much of a problem that you have to change the way an entire class of ship operates?
I don't really see this being a productive change either way, because lowsec motherships are still nigh on invincible.
|
benwallace
Mercenary Coalition Holding Corp Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:43:00 -
[46]
How often do you see a mothership fly around in 0.0 solo and not get wtfbbq'd by dictors and bs? These things need support already.
Anyone who does that is just idiotic. Saying mom's need to be nerfed is just wrong. Being able to bubble was all the balance they needed.
I'm starting to think you guys just nerf for nerfs sake now or nerf by majority moan.
"omg my 1000 man 1 day old char alliance keeps getting bbq'd by 100 man 800 day old chars alliance cause they can fly better ships, lifes so unfair"
|
Louis DelaBlanche
Cosmic Odyssey YouWhat
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:43:00 -
[47]
I have a few gripes with this idea. a) most ppl buy their own fighters, which means many arnt fond of delagating 100's of millions of isk worth to other ppl. b) RL carriers are deathbrining pwnmobiles, they just need other ships to defend them not add to their firepower. & EVE carriers & ms' are equally vulnerable when left without support despite what some would say (granted when theres 10 ina a turtleshell tank its takes a huge amount of firepower & Ewar to bring them down but so it should) c) in asizeable fleet engagement the micromanagement & time consuming nature of delegatingfighters really makes it not worth the hassle, especially when your the attacker & you dont have time. c) making motherships & carriers effectively the exact same thing further defeats the point of investing in supercaps imo. I doubt many will see the remote ECM thing as reason enough for a 20bill purchase (ive never even seen remote ECM used).
Personally, id much prefer if whoever is involved in caps & supercaps would just sit down & decide amoung eachother "right, this is what we want these ships to do & what role they should play" rather than the nerf this buff that till it finds its own niche philosophy that seems to be how theyre planned. (I want that jovian deathray from the eve chronicle , motherships were a complete letdown having read somuch about the Jovian ones).
Back to the topic at hand though, the idea as is is impracticle for larger 0.0 conflicts, & unattractive for smaller gangs/gatecamps. Im glad its just an idea & hope it never moves from discussion to drawingboard let alone tranquility.
|
Easy Kill
Minmatar Rens 911
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:43:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Phoenus
Originally by: Easy Kill
Fixed it up some more for you.
Poor attempt at trolling. I don't have, nor can fly - capital ships.
This is not 'balance'. This is utter ******ation.
Now shoo elsewhere.
I actually tend to agree that this won't do much to change anything to do with lag. Your post however was a whine based on CCP listening to whiners so I decided to have a little fun with it.
|
James Duar
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:44:00 -
[49]
Lag is really the killer in most situations - the super fighter blob wouldn't be a problem if it was at all possible to see/lock/shoot/activate smartbombs against them.
Honestly, I don't think I like it.
|
Emsigma
Contraband Inc. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:44:00 -
[50]
First of all, a Titan is still absurdely powerful and still has a GREAT logistical capability. Motherships lack that totally.
I can see the problem in where the game is going with a metric ton of capitals and motherships in low secs as well. A good start would be to ban motherships from low sec and only allow carriers/dreads there.
Second of all, it would be fair to make it so that you need a gang size of 5 for each mothership launcher 20 fighters or another way to make carriers and motherships more interdependable. ---
|
|
Waterfowl Democracy
The Ministry of Indigenous Affairs GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:44:00 -
[51]
Edited by: Waterfowl Democracy on 21/10/2007 11:46:07 So instead of now where a large carrier and mothership fleet can completely destroy an enemy fleet that is unable to respond at all thanks to the lag that the massive number of fighters create because fighters will continue to do their thing no matter how bad the lag we have a situation where those carriers and motherships can assign their fighters to disposable frigates and do the same thing?
Nice fix CCP, you haven't actually addressed the real concern. Why don't you make it so fighters won't agress on things automatically so that they don't just bandsaw through helpless players during high lag? This combined with limiting carriers and motherships to 5 drones would mean that the fighter bomb wouldn't work anymore (as everyone would need to actually act to kill things).
|
Nekumi
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:44:00 -
[52]
While it is good to see that development is being done in this area this doesn't really solve any of the perceived problems with fighter blobs and instead makes the perceived ones worse. It simultaneously promotes making massive capital fights more laggy because of the need for extra support to wield the fighters and also prevents smaller groups from fielding capital ships unless they do so understrength. This doesn't seem in any way fair or rebalanced.
|
Miriyana
Gallente Legions of Derek
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:46:00 -
[53]
Originally by: benwallace How often do you see a mothership fly around in 0.0 solo and not get wtfbbq'd by dictors and bs? These things need support already.
Anyone who does that is just idiotic. Saying mom's need to be nerfed is just wrong. Being able to bubble was all the balance they needed.
I'm starting to think you guys just nerf for nerfs sake now or nerf by majority moan.
"omg my 1000 man 1 day old char alliance keeps getting bbq'd by 100 man 800 day old chars alliance cause they can fly better ships, lifes so unfair"
Yep, it's true, it's hardly like cap ships are unbeatable. Especially carriers. Now a carrier or mothership can't even solo kill a battleship!
Pretty ****** up - - - - - - Change just leads to more problems
Originally by: CCP Wrangler Oh please no, I've had enough with real world taxes, and dealing with the tax agency. No more taxes!!
|
Pallidum Treponema
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:46:00 -
[54]
I really hope this is a joke. SERIOUSLY, I hope this is a joke.
Many players in the community are aware of the power of capital ships, not to mention that of supercapitals. This makes them a worthwhile goal to pursue, and once they reach the level of skills required to fly them, and acquire the funds to purchase or build one, it's a huge accomplishment. Even more so with the construction of a supercapital such as a mothership or titan.
Capital ships are already very vulnerable considering their costs, yet their firepower doesn't increase nearly as much as the cost. As an example, a carrier costs about 1.5 billion fully fitted, but its firepower, using today's numbers, is about 1000 DPS, equivalent to that of a short range battleship. Its strengths its stronger tank and the ability to project this firepower over a longer distance. This for a cost that is ten times that of the battleship.
It's also a fact that carriers are very easy to kill. This has been proven time after time as lone carriers get caught and are unable to defend themselves against even moderately sized gangs.
Now, motherships are even bigger and more costly. The ability to field upwards of 20 fighters is rather significant. However, this is still only the firepower of two to three short range battleships, to the cost of a hundred times of said battleship. If you include the cost of modules for a mothership, the cost is 200 times that of the battleship. And, once again, a mothership is not an invulnerable behemoth. This link shows that almost a dozen motherships have died since August 1st, most of them to gangs that didn't have any capital support whatsoever.
Even despite the vulnerability of these capital ships, many players are training for these vessels, or gathering ISK to buy one, for the simple reason that they are big accomplishments. Electronic-Ego-Boosters, if you wish.
Now, by nerfing them to the level where they individually have less firepower than many BATTLECRUISERS, you are also reducing a LOT of the incentive of having said ships. Carriers and motherships will no longer be able to perform in any offensive role, but will be reduced to purely defensive ships.
I predict that if this change goes through, a LOT of the fun of fighting with or against carriers will be gone. Using my own alliance as an example, we are using our capitals in a very offensive role. This means that we take full advantage of the firepower they provide us. This ALSO means that we take risks with these ships, which may have significant consequences. The loss of an MC as well as an ISS mothership during our battles in 49-U is a perfect example of this. By using our motherships agressively, we gain advantages, but we also provide the enemies with means to win major victories. I doubt anyone in IAC will deny that killing not one but two Alliance motherships in the same system was a huge victory for them.
If this change goes through, this will no longer happen. There will be absolutely no reason to forward-deploy motherships or carriers anymore. We will instead go back to the tactic of POS hugging, so much more viable with the introduction of faction towers, where carriers and motherships will sit right on top of a tower and simply delegate fighters while spidertanking each others. There will be no epic battles where capitals and supercapitals charge in and save the day, or go down in a blaze of glory.
And, there will be complaints about the amount of capitals that are sitting invulnerable at towers and just delegating fighters, and no one can do a thing to kill them. -- MC's Swedish squidshark
|
jeffb
GoonFleet
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:46:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Pattern Clarc Edited by: Pattern Clarc on 21/10/2007 11:22:40
Looks like goons are gunna get there way again....
Maybe you should have put some ideas forward instead of trying to drown the subject out in a sea of ****?
|
Dalekplunger Slick
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:47:00 -
[56]
I like it. Anything to reduce the number of fighters on a grid at once gets an A+ in my book. Even if it doesn't reduce the total number of fighters but transfers them to a conventional, (and killable), support fleet - that's A-OK. (This is coming from a carrier pilot, by the way). |
The Economist
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:47:00 -
[57]
I really fail to see anything positive coming from these 'changes' (by which I mean massive nerfs).
Please, for the love of god, no-one give this man a nerfbat.
Sig removed. Please keep sigs to 400x120 pixels and 24000 bytes in size or less. -Kaemonn |
Zakgram
Atomic Heroes The OSS
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:47:00 -
[58]
For those complaining about the price of carriers, or the price of fighters - come on... if it's supposed to be a gang ship then why isn't the gang (corp/alliance) funding it? If you're having to fund all your own losses then that's your own choice...
|
clone 1
Laughing Leprechauns Corporation
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:47:00 -
[59]
So motherships carriers can only drop 5 of their own fighter/drones solo. Fighters cannot be delegated in low-sec. This is a nerf to the lo sec solo gatecamping mothership/carrier. Who knew this was coming?
Always Moaning About Race Retardations |
rompetroll
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:48:00 -
[60]
Has CCP ever gone back on ideas they had in dev blogs?
|
|
Gregster
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:48:00 -
[61]
I suggest u, CCP Wrangler, to get in a carrier, and try to assign anything in system with 500+ pilots. GL trying
And when u finaly understand its impossible, rethink your ideas
|
Shadowsword
COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:48:00 -
[62]
This change makes sense when applied on fighters and heavy/sentry drones, but I think a carrier should be able to have higher-than-average anti-frig defenses. They should still be able to launch 10 light or medium drones, imho. ------------------------------------------
What is Oomph? It the sound Amarr players makes when they get kicked in the ribs. |
Miriyana
Gallente Legions of Derek
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:49:00 -
[63]
Originally by: clone 1 So motherships carriers can only drop 5 of their own fighter/drones solo. Fighters cannot be delegated in low-sec. This is a nerf to the lo sec solo gatecamping mothership/carrier. Who knew this was coming?
Dude it's a nerf coming to any capitals anywhere! You do realise 5 fighters is not enough to kill a BS right... -_- - - - - - - Change just leads to more problems
Originally by: CCP Wrangler Oh please no, I've had enough with real world taxes, and dealing with the tax agency. No more taxes!!
|
Sprzedawczyk
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:49:00 -
[64]
This idea is so ******** it's not even funny.
Do you even have a brain somewhere, because we are sure you weren't using it thinking up that ******iness?
I'M OFF TO CREATE 5 "NEWBIE" TRIAL ACCOUNTS. THEY WILL LOVE ME AND WILL COME IN THEIR SHUTTLES/VELATORS/BANTAMS/VEXORS WITH ME TO EVERY BATTLE. ACTUALLY, 5 HOURS BEFORE EVERY BATTLE JUST TO LAG THE HELL OUT OF ENEMY TRYING TO GET IN.
Ps. Will you lower mothership production cost to 500M and reimburse everyone who has one for making them equal to 600M carrier?
|
0mega
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:49:00 -
[65]
I don't see how this achieves anything but nerfing low-sec motherships.
What's wrong with implementing the various classes of fighters spotted on SiSi over the last couple of months? Have assignable frigate, cruiser and BS-sized drones each optimized for killing their own class. The new drone bandwidth system can then determine how many can then be deployed at once, with frigate-class hitting the current limits (15 carrier / 25 ms) but battleships more limited (say 5 per carrier / 10 per ms). The total dps of say 5 heavier BS-fighters would be more comparable to current carrier dps of 10-15 current fighters.
Alot of the current 'blobbing' of fighters is intended to combat BS and capital-heavy fleets. Now in order for that to reach effective dps, carriers and MSes will need to deploy far small numbers of heavier fighters. Lower numbers of fighters on grid means less grid loading lag, motherships and carriers are still as effective providing additional firepower, and of course there's still a reason to make an MS over a carrier.
|
Feng Schui
Minmatar The Ninja Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:50:00 -
[66]
Edited by: Feng Schui on 21/10/2007 11:51:15 Well, I did manage to tank 3 dreads, 2 battleships, and a carrier w/ fighters on the SiSi Armageddon day <---- i was in a thanatos, with a set of slaves + uberomgwtf tank.
But, then again, I'm a veteran arbitrator / pilgrim pilot, with a year+ of game experience, and was fighting week old or so newb pilots
other than that, I will add nothing to this thread. |
maria stallion
Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:51:00 -
[67]
Sorry zulu but I have to say this, I think you are screwing up the game ....
EVE has gone borring a lot since the POS warfare, developers try to give the game more action, but then you come along and start nerfing some cap to make them completly worthless in the fight. Carriers should fight in battles, they are slow easy to hold at one place but hard to take down.
With new changes people won't use there carriers anymore. Who wants to sit at the pos all day deligating fighters, would you like to sit at a pos all day Zulupark? the other thing is dat people will start using the Moros, because the Moros would be a better drone boat then the carrier.
Comon Zulupark you should thoughed about this better, the game needs more action, not more sitting at a pos.
|
Darko1107
Caldari E X O D U S Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:52:00 -
[68]
Sounds like a really bad idea to be honest. Can you imagine trying to asign fighters for 30 carriers to other members of the fleet. Then tracking to see if those members are still alive, then resigning them when they die, and letting that gangmember know he has fighters before he dies himself?
Carriers really dont help with logistics in fleets anyway apart from repping capital ships. Your vision of them helping smaller ships is ludicris, those ships just pop far to quickly for a carrer to even get a lock and rep it.
Some else has also mensioned this, but motherships, they cost what, 20 billion? Why shouldnt they be able to use like 20 fighters at once? They are the mother of all ships, but they can only use the same amount of fighters as a carrier?
Basically this will just mean theres no point in motherships, and carriers will only ever use 5 fighters. ------------------
Sig removed, please keep it under the 24,000 byte limit, if you have any questions please email [email protected] - Xorus |
Dupree
Caldari Excell Industries
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:53:00 -
[69]
Just my opinion, but I really think this will kill the carrier/mother ship use. As for the statement "the better than battleship, ship"......thats what a capitol ship is. I agree with being able to launch and assign 5 at a time. But, in light of the isk value, and prestige, a carrier piolt should be able to defend them self with the full ability, and firepower of thier ship. Limiting the fighters would be bareable, but not the standard drones. Just my opinion, but I will duck, cause I think they shown you the nerf bat with a post like this. The things we do in life echo in eternity. "Maximus Decimus Murideus" |
Kappas.
Galaxy Punks O X I D E
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:53:00 -
[70]
I notice a distinct lack of CCP in this thread. More of a "drop the dev blog and run for it!" kind of thing...
Originally by: clone 1 This is a nerf to the lo sec solo gatecamping mothership/carrier. Who knew this was coming?
Ever had sentry guns shoot fighters? They don't last long.
- If you're doing this to reduce lag - what's the point? You've now made sure that there are an extra 2-3 ships per capital on the field in addition to its full compliment of fighters - congratulations you've made more lag!
Plans to get carriers on to the front lines? Not worth the risk now is it?
If we have to start delegating fighters to people as a mandatory thing, for the love of god reduce the price of them a little eh?
|
|
Pallidum Treponema
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:55:00 -
[71]
Originally by: ZaKma
So now instead of nice cap vs cap fights while the support fights it out on their own, you'll have 50 capitals and 500 support on grid.
No, ZaKma. The carriers won't be on-grid. Why risk the carriers if you can't use them agressively? It's so much better to have them hug a faction POS, where they can spider rep each others, and perform the role they're FORCED to perform, namely delegate fighters. -- MC's Swedish squidshark
|
Miriyana
Gallente Legions of Derek
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:55:00 -
[72]
regarding the lag reduction : doesnt the new client take care of most of the rendering/client-side lag anyway? - - - - - - Change just leads to more problems
Originally by: CCP Wrangler Oh please no, I've had enough with real world taxes, and dealing with the tax agency. No more taxes!!
|
Yorda
Kudzu Collective Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:57:00 -
[73]
Originally by: Miriyana regarding the lag reduction : doesnt the new client take care of most of the rendering/client-side lag anyway?
AHahahahah ooohhhh god you poor little lamb.
About this idea? It will make more lag and therefore its TERRIBLE.
I am still a goon so this signature stays |
Hazel Starr
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:57:00 -
[74]
There is an implicit contract between CCP and players that games systems which require months of training or hundreds of millions of ISK of investment to use effectively should be long-term stable in their behavior.
Rapidly implemented major changes in game behavior such as this suggestion for carriers and the proposed range reduction change for torpedoes break this contract.
Try making changes in a slower, more studied and incremental fashion. Publish longer term policy as to the ways you are planning to move the game so that people can anticipate effectively.
-- Haze
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:58:00 -
[75]
Hmm.
Certainly helps to fix the low-sec mothership gatecamp issue I guess, although I suspect that it will simply result in a Mothership bringing along a few alts/corpmates to assign the fighters to.
However this doesn't really do anything to resolve the main issue with fighter/drone swarms, which is the way that the entire grid grinds to a halt when a large number of them are deployed combined with their ability to auto-aggress on opponents who are too lagged out to warp away or activate tanks.
If this is CCPs answer to that issue, then I'm not impressed.
|
Pattern Clarc
Brutor tribe
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:59:00 -
[76]
Originally by: jeffb
Originally by: Pattern Clarc Edited by: Pattern Clarc on 21/10/2007 11:22:40
Looks like goons are gunna get there way again....
Maybe you should have put some ideas forward instead of trying to drown the subject out in a sea of ****?
See my second post ****** Sig removed lacks EVE content, email [email protected] if you have any questions - Xorus |
Stavros
Amarr Spartan Industries Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:59:00 -
[77]
Edited by: Stavros on 21/10/2007 12:01:09 This is something of a humorous insult given in the guise of 'game balance'. As previously stated carriers/motherships die alot, to gangs of much smaller ships, they are hardly uber SOLOPWNMOBILES.
This alleged 'game balance' has precisely sod all to do with balance and everything to do with reducing lag. Now if the OP just came out and admitted that then thats peachy, but don't try to feed us stale bread and tell us its caviar.
Eve cannot handle carriers/moms in the current incarnation, they just fighter spam entire systems to a laggy death. Just come out, admit it, then look at ways to fix it.
Ta
XXX
Stavros --
"DANCE DANCE" |
thormadragon
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:00:00 -
[78]
Basically what you are trying to do is to make life for smaller corps/alliances like mine a lot harder... this works in favor of the big alliances who didn¦t stop whining in here for months. The small groups now pay the prize as always. C¦mon these ship classes are called Carrier/Mothership! Every pilot training skills for months, every miner working for the minerals to build them is ****ed now as you plan to remove the real fun about those ships... they are expensive, they are huge, they should be able to launch a lot of fighters to kill a battleship in a short time by themselves. Having the choice to assign fighters to gang members or not is fine, but being forced to do it is the wrong way. Fighters are expensive and the chance for them getting popped when gang members loose connection or blow up is increased that way, and their effectiveness reduced because you loose a lot of time reassigning them. All in all this idea is a killer for smaller alliances, please reconsider this and don¦t kill all the fun in the game by nerfing ships which were doing just fine in all those past years.
|
Dalekplunger Slick
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:01:00 -
[79]
Originally by: maria stallion
Comon Zulupark you should thoughed about this better, the game needs more action, not more sitting at a pos.
With 50 carriers and 600 fighters orbiting your capital fleet, you don't get "more action" you get "more lag". Not just any lag - crippling, game breaking lag where no productive "action" can occur. Killing a 120-man support fleet under those conditions is a lot more feasible than killing 50 spider-tanking capitals. |
Buxaroo
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:02:00 -
[80]
I usually don't whine about changes on the forums, but this is the worse idea ever. All of this because some mentally ****** monkey in a nuub ship gets ganked in low sec buy ANOTHER mentally ******** monkey in a MS setting at a gate? Sure, fighters contribute to lag, but so does 500 peope in a system even without fighters deployed.
And whats the point of a Mothership? The only thing that they get is no dampening/ECM effects on them. And lets not get into carriers, which you want to have them support their support fleet, but the carrier is rendered useless if its dampened by some cheap ass 200k isk frigate so they can't "support their own fleet with repping" because of this? Yeah, nice ******* balancing going on there And NO ONE USES TRIAGE module. No one. It would be suicidal.
The only Mothership nerf that is needed is something to hurt all the jackasses in low sec. That's the only nerf needed. Nerf MS in low sec where it's needed, not in 0.0
"No matter where you go, there you are" - B |
|
clone 1
Laughing Leprechauns Corporation
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:04:00 -
[81]
Originally by: Miriyana
Originally by: clone 1 So motherships carriers can only drop 5 of their own fighter/drones solo. Fighters cannot be delegated in low-sec. This is a nerf to the lo sec solo gatecamping mothership/carrier. Who knew this was coming?
Dude it's a nerf coming to any capitals anywhere! You do realise 5 fighters is not enough to kill a BS right... -_-
Oh I realize that, but in low-sec moms will have a firepower of 5 fighters, in 0.0 moms will have max damage if he has 3 friends.
I am as ****ed off as the next guy with they way these changes are taking shape. The drone interface sucks beyond belief, and now capital pilots will have to micro manage their fighters in the heat of battle. Coms traffic will be full of 'who hasnt fighters already'.
Primarily this is a processing power limitation being touted as a balance, currently 3 ships + Mothership = 35 Fighters/drones, new way 3 ships + mothership = 20 Fighters/drones.
Always Moaning About Race Retardations |
mallina
Caldari Core Contingency
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:04:00 -
[82]
Edited by: mallina on 21/10/2007 12:04:32 Does nothing but make it everso-more frustrating to keep track of Fighters.
Also, what about normal Drones? Why shouldn't a carrier be able to field, for instance, 13 heavy Logistics drones?
IMO a bad change that will do nothing to fix the issue mentioned but make Fighter control ten times as much of an Irritation as it should be (and severely limits their versatility) ---
|
ZaKma
Seraphin Technologies Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:04:00 -
[83]
Originally by: Pallidum Treponema
Originally by: ZaKma
So now instead of nice cap vs cap fights while the support fights it out on their own, you'll have 50 capitals and 500 support on grid.
No, ZaKma. The carriers won't be on-grid. Why risk the carriers if you can't use them agressively? It's so much better to have them hug a faction POS, where they can spider rep each others, and perform the role they're FORCED to perform, namely delegate fighters.
Well, that would depend who's using them. We can do this already, if we wanted to. We can take 5 fighters and assign them to anyone in the fleet and then sit at the pos and do **** all. But that's not how capitals should be used imo. Plus the carrier is harder to kill than a normal support ship, thus it's still a asset on the battlefield. Although with questionable risk/reward. And I'm sure many many alliances would stop fielding them in the way they currently are. After all, if a carrier is only going to be useful to give someone the firepower of a BC.. you might as well just bring a sniper BS.
|
Kali Ma
Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:06:00 -
[84]
What is the point of getting a mothership now, If you spend 30bill + the fittings you should expect it to be a death bringer and uber, If CCP keeps up with this policy a lot of people will have nothing to strive for in this game. Its well seen CCP caters for the forum whiners and not the long term players who wish to keep on developing there toons.
Kali
|
Seleene
Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:06:00 -
[85]
Originally by: Pallidum Treponema No, ZaKma. The carriers won't be on-grid. Why risk the carriers if you can't use them agressively? It's so much better to have them hug a faction POS, where they can spider rep each others, and perform the role they're FORCED to perform, namely delegate fighters.
Yep. This kind of change will mean that front line carrier combat will become a thing of the past.
Originally by: Juno II ITS A CARRIER _with_ repair abilities. Not a repair ship with _some_ drone stuff.
^^ THIS
In addition, the current interface to delegate fighters is woefully difficult to navigate even under the best conditions. Are there any changes planned for this?
So we have lag, ships exploding and everything else a carrier pilot has to contend with and now you wanna add more? In a big fight, a carrier pilot has to monitor the following things:
Look for targets per the Capital FCÆs instructions Keep an eye on your fighters damage to make sure they are not being smartbombed / shot Ensure that you deploy more fighters when you start to lose them Monitor your distance to other carriers so you can stay within remote rep range Watch for other carriers needing remote rep Relay any tackling frigates / interdictor names to the support fleet
Now letÆs add in this new æforcedÆ delegation of fighters:
Find someone at the beginning of the battle to delegate your fighters to (not every support pilot wants to deal with this!) Somehow monitor if the person you delegated your fighters to is still flying a ship (canÆt assign to a pod) If the person has died, search through the gang to try find someone else in a support ship Find another support ship that does not already have fighters assigned Find another support ship that can actually use the fighters properly (a sniping BS at 200k out isnÆt much use here)
Let the carriers keep control of their weaponry. Their fighters are their guns and the only long range damage tool they have. All this adds a needless layer of complexity to an already complex element of combat. It also requires even more ships to be on grid than before.
Originally by: 0mega Alot of the current 'blobbing' of fighters is intended to combat BS and capital-heavy fleets. Now in order for that to reach effective dps, carriers and MSes will need to deploy far small numbers of heavier fighters. Lower numbers of fighters on grid means less grid loading lag, motherships and carriers are still as effective providing additional firepower, and of course there's still a reason to make an MS over a carrier.
^^ Something like this.
Most complaints you see on the forums seem to be about the number of fighters causing lag. LAG! Why not just reduce the number of controlable fighters and let some skills apply to them like drones so they get a small boost? I'd trade down from 20 fighters in my mom to 10 if some of the 12 million or so skill points I had in drones was allowed to apply to them. -
THIS FLEET FOR RENT! |
Darekish
Caldari Ascent of Ages Dark Matter Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:06:00 -
[86]
For the love of god no. This makes the isk invested in carriers / MS so vulnerable (especially the drone bit)!
|
Emsigma
Contraband Inc. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:07:00 -
[87]
Edited by: Emsigma on 21/10/2007 12:10:02 First of all, I think that 0mega touched a very sensible point together with another goon guy (omg, i gonna get shot for this on the MC boards :D).
Reasonable suggestion to START to fix moms and carriers would be:
1) Make motherships unable to enter low sec 2) Make fighters more stupid than a puppy, ie. you have to manually chose "Attack" for them to do anything and when target is destroyed they go back and idle. All in order to make carriers/moms have the same drawback to lag as everyone else. Normal drones should work in the same way though, 3) Make a drone overhaul again as last time. Make it so that you always launch 5 fighters and then you get bonus to them instead. Ie, Nyx would at lvl5 have +400% struct,armor and shield HP and +500% damage on fighters. DCU would give +20% HP and +20% damage to each fighter(absolute ofc and not cumulative). This makes fighters alot easier to get rid of and also reduces strain on the clients. ---
|
The Medusa
Minmatar DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:07:00 -
[88]
I like this. * It will allow for any gang attacking / defending to keep they're firepower. * It will limit the small gank-gangs in low-sec.. And we all know they shouldn't be there. * For assaults on POS's, equal numbers of none-gallente dreads and carriers will allow for the same number of fighters hitting the POS modules. It will somewhat limit the repair-ammounts when repping POS modules / station services, but, mehh.. still this sounds like a decent fix.
In my eyes, every last one of the patches made to 'game mechanics' have been successfull ..
|
Aramendel
Amarr North Face Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:07:00 -
[89]
Originally by: Stellar Vix Second!
Wow chibbera beat me by a few seconds :(
First!
*cough*
Anyway, the core problem with this change is that you'll change carrier instead to "the-ships-that-keep-other-ships-alive-and-provide-them-with-additional-firepower ships" to "the-ships-that-hug-a-POS-and-delegate-fighters".
Their remote rep abilities are just not enough to justify using them on the frontlines. especially since that can be disabled too easily with damps. The triage mode is no solution there since it also removes all their firepower.
Maybe if triage would be changed to allow fighters now or if a new triage variation would be introduced, one without the rep amount bonuses and the fighter control reduction, but with the EW immunity and sig res bonuses.
In either case, this change - doesn't matter if it is good or bad - is a massive de-promotion to put carriers on the frontlines. They need some carrot to justify their frontline use.
|
ArmyOfMe
hirr Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:08:00 -
[90]
Honestly, if you dont want capital ships in the game then just come out and say it... And for gods sake just give us back the isk invested in the skills and ships and give us back our sp and we will be on our merry way once again. But unless you do that this will be the worst ******* change ever for every carrier/mom pilot out there.
If i had even had the slightes idea that you would even consider nerfing the ships this much i would never have trained for them in the first place
|
|
Rodent
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:08:00 -
[91]
Originally by: 0mega I don't see how this achieves anything but nerfing low-sec motherships.
What's wrong with implementing the various classes of fighters spotted on SiSi over the last couple of months? Have assignable frigate, cruiser and BS-sized drones each optimized for killing their own class. The new drone bandwidth system can then determine how many can then be deployed at once, with frigate-class hitting the current limits (15 carrier / 25 ms) but battleships more limited (say 5 per carrier / 10 per ms). The total dps of say 5 heavier BS-fighters would be more comparable to current carrier dps of 10-15 current fighters.
Alot of the current 'blobbing' of fighters is intended to combat BS and capital-heavy fleets. Now in order for that to reach effective dps, carriers and MSes will need to deploy far small numbers of heavier fighters. Lower numbers of fighters on grid means less grid loading lag, motherships and carriers are still as effective providing additional firepower, and of course there's still a reason to make an MS over a carrier.
|
Tetsujin
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:08:00 -
[92]
Edited by: Tetsujin on 21/10/2007 12:08:38
Originally by: Tetsujin Does this change come in conjunction with altering fighter code to reduce the amount of lag they create, or is this your theorized resolution to that problem?
Please answer this question as it is the most succinct version of what is on everyone's mind.
|
James Duar
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:08:00 -
[93]
Originally by: Kali Ma What is the point of getting a mothership now, If you spend 30bill + the fittings you should expect it to be a death bringer and uber, If CCP keeps up with this policy a lot of people will have nothing to strive for in this game. Its well seen CCP caters for the forum whiners and not the long term players who wish to keep on developing there toons.
Kali
ISK invested has nothing to do with the destructive potential of what is brought and does not and has never scaled linearly with cost but rather obeyed something of a principle of diminishing returns.
While I don't agree with the changes, nor is your reasoning about them remotely appropriate.
|
HotSeat
Black Omega Security Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:08:00 -
[94]
Sorry but you do not understand the issue in game ATM.
The problem is the number of fighters, and there effect on grid loading. Your solution will do nothing too stop the problem.
Answer is simple, reduce the numbers of fighters, and give a equal damage bonus. Let MS have 2x or 3x fighters of a carrier, no issue as there is not that many MS's anyways.
Convert Drone interface into a damage bonus as well, if you don't want anymore then 5 fighters per carrier.
Sov 4 is nothing compared to the Power of the Grief !! |
Pallidum Treponema
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:08:00 -
[95]
Originally by: 0mega I don't see how this achieves anything but nerfing low-sec motherships.
What's wrong with implementing the various classes of fighters spotted on SiSi over the last couple of months? Have assignable frigate, cruiser and BS-sized drones each optimized for killing their own class. The new drone bandwidth system can then determine how many can then be deployed at once, with frigate-class hitting the current limits (15 carrier / 25 ms) but battleships more limited (say 5 per carrier / 10 per ms). The total dps of say 5 heavier BS-fighters would be more comparable to current carrier dps of 10-15 current fighters.
Alot of the current 'blobbing' of fighters is intended to combat BS and capital-heavy fleets. Now in order for that to reach effective dps, carriers and MSes will need to deploy far small numbers of heavier fighters. Lower numbers of fighters on grid means less grid loading lag, motherships and carriers are still as effective providing additional firepower, and of course there's still a reason to make an MS over a carrier.
THIS.
QFE. -- MC's Swedish squidshark
|
pershphanie
Deadly Addiction
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:10:00 -
[96]
WTF... Did Goonswarm buy CCP?
Ever occur to anyone that maybe a ship that costs 20bill should be able to instapop a ship that costs 60mill? Maybe it's a good thing that a 5man battleship gang can't roast a mothership. At least now it takes a gang of 10 bs/bc's(which personally I think is ******** as well) And as far as carriers go, well isn't it enough that a 1mill sp player flying a 20k isk maulus can render a 60mill skillpoint carrier pilot completely useless with one sensor dampener?
I have to seriously question the wisdom of nerfing any cap more than it already is. Requiring carrier/ms pilots to bring in even more support with them to use their ships might not be the best of ideas. Lag is bad enough already. Reassigning a fighter in a situation in the middle of a fight where you are facing a 200man blob will be impossible. And it will require a 200man support fleet to field a capital fleet with these changes. IMO it is already absolutely absurd that a mothership/titan can't tank more damage over time than a carrier, but to weaken their damage output too? really?
I'm shocked/disappointed that someone at CCP thought that this is a good enough idea to right a blog about and someone else agreed.
CCP - If you do this can I have my skillpoints back to allocate elsewhere since you are essentially making carriers a completely different ship than the one I spent months training for? ------>PҼſϚի<------
|
Turkantho
Asgard Schiffswerften Ev0ke
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:10:00 -
[97]
Give us back TomB hell even Tux was better...
This is a stupid idea that will kill carriers on the frontlines, they will be back to be POS hugging ships, increase blobs and kill the last useabilitsy a motherships has, more drones. Seriously why should I field a motherships that cost about 20x what a carrier costs, not to mention the logistics behind a mothership when it does the same damage a carrier does ??? ________
Sometimes paranoiaÆs just having all the facts. |
Xthril Ranger
hirr Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:10:00 -
[98]
I spent 18 months training for this and they change the role back to pos sitting again. And I really do not like the idea of sitting in a 30 billion ship without the possibility to defend myself anymore.
Guess I'll fit 6 command links and idle at pos. . you'll never jump alone
|
Mersault
Gallente LFC
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:11:00 -
[99]
>Booo, may aswell sell up the carrier then...
signed
|
Caiman Graystock
The Caldari Confederation
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:11:00 -
[100]
It seems like the caps won't have support fleets then, but supported fleets. Shouldn't the cap be the main offensive vehicle in the fleet, with those around it defending it and such? Nerf its defensive capabilities instead of its offence if you want it to be forced to work as part of a larger fleet, make it need secondary defence.
|
|
Lazuran
Gallente Time And ISK Sink Corporation
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:12:00 -
[101]
Edited by: Lazuran on 21/10/2007 12:12:34 Great, let's screw the gameplay up even more for older / more active players (who are more likely to have caps/supercaps) and sell it to our stupid customers as "good gameplay changes" when it's basically yet another way of reducing lag caused by bad programming.
The 10.000s of new players you wish to recruit with shiny screenshots will thank you, I suppose. I won't.
isn't it funny how some people advocate both GTC<=>ISK trades and EVE being superior due to its cruelty and costly losses, when they use the former to circumvent the latter?
|
clone 1
Laughing Leprechauns Corporation
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:13:00 -
[102]
I predict that Zulupark will have to change his name
No mention of bandwidth, no mention of lag, no mention of low-sec idiots.. Your a star Zulupark
Always Moaning About Race Retardations |
Mining dude
FinFleet Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:15:00 -
[103]
can i plz get the skille time i ues for carriers back then?
|
Pattern Clarc
Brutor tribe
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:15:00 -
[104]
Originally by: clone 1 I predict that Zulupark will have to change his name
No mention of bandwidth, no mention of lag, no mention of low-sec idiots.. Your a star Zulupark
LoL This Sig removed lacks EVE content, email [email protected] if you have any questions - Xorus |
Reatu Krentor
Minmatar Void Spiders Fate Weavers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:20:00 -
[105]
Edited by: Reatu Krentor on 21/10/2007 12:23:57
Originally by: Seleene
Originally by: Pallidum Treponema ...
Yep. This kind of change will mean that front line carrier combat will become a thing of the past.
Originally by: Juno II ...
^^ THIS
In addition, the current interface to delegate fighters is woefully difficult to navigate even under the best conditions. Are there any changes planned for this?
So we have lag, ships exploding and everything else a carrier pilot has to contend with and now you wanna add more? In a big fight, a carrier pilot has to monitor the following things:
Look for targets per the Capital FCÆs instructions Keep an eye on your fighters damage to make sure they are not being smartbombed / shot Ensure that you deploy more fighters when you start to lose them Monitor your distance to other carriers so you can stay within remote rep range Watch for other carriers needing remote rep Relay any tackling frigates / interdictor names to the support fleet
Now letÆs add in this new æforcedÆ delegation of fighters:
Find someone at the beginning of the battle to delegate your fighters to (not every support pilot wants to deal with this!) Somehow monitor if the person you delegated your fighters to is still flying a ship (canÆt assign to a pod) If the person has died, search through the gang to try find someone else in a support ship Find another support ship that does not already have fighters assigned Find another support ship that can actually use the fighters properly (a sniping BS at 200k out isnÆt much use here)
Let the carriers keep control of their weaponry. Their fighters are their guns and the only long range damage tool they have. All this adds a needless layer of complexity to an already complex element of combat. It also requires even more ships to be on grid than before.
Originally by: 0mega ...
^^ Something like this
Most complaints you see on the forums seem to be about the number of fighters causing lag. LAG! Why not just reduce the number of controlable fighters and let some skills apply to them like drones so they get a small boost? I'd trade down from 20 fighters in my mom to 10 if some of the 12 million or so skill points I had in drones was allowed to apply to them.
Pretty much what I'm thinking...
But if you do go through with this, make it so that the carrier pilot's skill applies to the fighters no matter who is controlling them(unless this was changed it doesn't atm). (+edit) And change triage to still allow for delegation of fighters, still leaves the carrier with 0 own offense but at least the people he is supporting can have BC-grade dps extra. --- stuff |
greywinged
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:21:00 -
[106]
Edited by: greywinged on 21/10/2007 12:21:43 Current situation in fleet engagements :
Launch drones, wait 5 minutes for them all to appear. Assume you control 12 of them. Order them to engage your target, 5 minutes later they start fighting. You carrier is useful after 10 minutes.
With the proposed changes :
Launch your first set of fighters (say 4) : 5 minutes. Delegate control to a pilot : takes 5 minutes for the command to get through and the 4 drones to dissapear from your 'drones in local space'. Launch 2nd wave of 4 fighters : another 5 minutes before they appear and you can order them around. Delegate control to another pilot : 5 minutes. Launch the final 4 fighters so you can kill something as well (btw - lol at your DPS) : another 5 minutes. You probably managed to lock something by now if you're lucky so lets put the fighters on them... After a total of 30 minutes you finally start doing some damage.
The 5 minute number is optimistic, in the last 2 fleet engagements where i took my carrier to the frontlines, i had to wait 20+ in one and in the second the fighters launched some 10 minutes after the fight ended. I've learned to live with the module activation and command delays in such fights and can deal with it, but this is making things needlessly complicated for carrier pilots. It might work great in small fights where there's minimal lag and you can properly manage your drones, but in big fights this will eventually make me prefer a BS over a carrier so i can atleast do something...
Ofcourse the point is moot as there's no lag in eve, right? Launching them all before the fight and delegating them is not always an option and due to lag you still lose your flexibility during the fight, thats why a carrier is currently better off using the drones himself instead of delegating them.
|
Ediz Daxx
FinFleet Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:21:00 -
[107]
Edited by: Ediz Daxx on 21/10/2007 12:22:30 What kind of stupid idea is this? So now all the carrier/moms will do is afk in a pos assigning fighters where as now they can actually take part of the fights since they can field all their fighters at once. There is absolutly no interest in getting a carrier/mom if these changes stick, people would only buy them becouse theyre glorfied haulers and even thats gonna change with the new freighters with jumpdrive.. so all it really is gonna be i a AFK ship 1m outside POS shields assigning fighters.. what a brilliant idea CCP.
Can i have the time spent on training carriers reimbursed please?
______________________________________ This was a triumph. I'm making a note here: HUGE SUCCESS. It's hard to overstate my satisfaction. |
Xune
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:23:00 -
[108]
Actualy i dont like this changes at all. Considering.
- The time you have to invest to use them effectivly. A lot of those who dedicated themself to Carriers or motherships spent a lot of time getting carrier 5 fighter 5 jdc5 and so on. After the changes we will pretty much " loose" a lot of invested skillpoints if the gang we are in is not able to use up all the resources we could provide. So no more small 2 People gangs with Carrier or mom support. No, more blobing.
- Considering the overall performance of eve is much more likly to loose Fighters if you have to spread them out even more then you do now. More people = more chanche of desinc lag, and so on. Causing the fighters to idle or simply be shot down before they can be send back for repairs.
- A lot of people complain about Carriers and Moterships are already to hard to kill. Now they will get impossible to kill, thers no reason to keep them in gride to the battle at all. Simply let them jump between safespots and take a short break if some one needs to be repped up. Ther will be no need for spider-tanks or alike. Dreads in siege cant be repped. And ther wont be any need for the carriers or moms in gride.
-Remote Ecm burst. While i havent seen them used much lately i guesse this changes, combined with the overall reduction in combat effectivity of Motherships will be used even less.
Titans and doomsday was a kind of crowd controll against lots of small targets till they got nerfed. And now we see again that a lot of people complain about carriers. Why ? well its easy to tell isent it ? They not reached the step where some older but less people are. So they do what they can best, cry for nerf. And we will see more of those cry¦s the further the game evoles. As soon as they reach the step we have now, they will think its unfair that ther now nerved Carriers and Motherships lose to >insert what ever you want< and cry for a nerv anew. Moterships and Carriers are not broken. Why should we break them now and spin the will of " bring 100 people more then they have and we win" anew ? its already bad enough.
Xune
|
Inturist
Nuclear Reactor Inc INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:23:00 -
[109]
Bring back TomB --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
WrathOfOprah
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:23:00 -
[110]
Originally by: Rodent Edited by: Rodent on 21/10/2007 12:20:15
Originally by: CCP Zulupark Are you doing this to decrease lag No, this is purely balancing ideas, nothing to do with lag or server load
This is your problem right there. To use a cliche, carriers are fine - learn to play. The only problem with carriers and motherships is the lag they generate.
This. Ans I think most people will agree.
|
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:23:00 -
[111]
In LARGE battles, it renders ATTACKING force carriers ALMOST COMPLETELY useless, due to lag... and DEFENDING ones slightly less effective due to occasional dropouts. In smaller-sized battles, it adds a big hassle of bothering to reassign fighters. In solo battles (or carrier-only/mostly gangs), it nerfs carrier firepower hugely. You fix one issue of the situation (solo pwnmobile or mostly-carrier strike teams), while adding a lot of unnecessary hassle.
If you REALLY want to do this, start thinking of ways to remove the "fighter delegation" mechanism altogether, and replacing it with a "fleet commander fighter control" tactical screen or somesuch, where the NUMBER of fighters in space alloocated to "fleet command" is linked to the fleet size in the current battle, and fighters are EITHER completely autonomous OR the fleet commander can see every local grid locked target and assign up to 5 fighters per target lock on that target. _
1|2|3 |
ArmyOfMe
hirr Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:24:00 -
[112]
1. Do you like this idea (that is the more-support-oriented idea)? Carriers are already used as support ships in fleetbattles, the fighters just actually give us a chance to do more then just rep other ppl.
2. If so, do you like the approach we're thinking about (fighter deployment limits)? No, i dont like it at all. it will make carriers sit at pos during the whole fight. 3. If you liked the idea but no the solution, what propositions do you have? I already think carriers are fine as they are. However i wouldnt mind if you made moms not able to enter low sec 4. If you don't like the idea at all, why not? It makes carriers close to useless
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? You should have a look at killboards and see how many carriers get trapped when cynoing outside some pos or tries to undock and gets bumped. These changes will make the carrier defenceless against stuff like this
|
Mr Funkadelic
Tenacious Danes Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:25:00 -
[113]
This gota be the worst change ever made by ccp - Zulupark is defently my least favorite person right about now
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong Namtz'aar k'in
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:25:00 -
[114]
stop ignore the fact that fighter create client side lag. they are nothing but big drones.
now wait for the new engine to come out and use a fighter again.
if there is no imporvment in the classic eve with the new code then you say all you want.
but these change would not be coming out before this. ----------------------------------- I'm working my way through college target CCP need...more room... |
Dalekplunger Slick
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:26:00 -
[115]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
Are you doing this to decrease lag No, this is purely balancing ideas, nothing to do with lag or server load
Well then change my vote to a "No". Fix the lag. Fix the server load. We can talk about redecorating the house once the fire is put out. |
Lazuran
Gallente Time And ISK Sink Corporation
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:26:00 -
[116]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark Righto then.
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?
It's a bad idea and the real-life analogy doesn't work, because you will simply force mothership-owning players to have 4 more "support" accounts running (for solo work, in addition to the emergency cyno char) all the time so they can attack stuff.
It will make no difference to their ability to insta-fry battleships, it will just be a lot more tedious for them.
And by the way, in real life we never see any kinds of military ships going to a fight solo, except a submarine with nuclear warheads perhaps. It's not a good analogy for EVE, where you don't have to join an Alliance to play or to fight.
Carriers and motherships are fine, just fix the bloody lag, please.
isn't it funny how some people advocate both GTC<=>ISK trades and EVE being superior due to its cruelty and costly losses, when they use the former to circumvent the latter?
|
Treelox
Amarr Frontier Technologies
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:27:00 -
[117]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark For you real-life analogy aficionados: Do you ever see a aircraft carrier travel anywhere without a blob of smaller support ships?
Now adays a handful of support ships, but none of them have anything to do with the Carriers offensive abillities. --
Pirlouit nerfed my sig :( |
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong Namtz'aar k'in
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:28:00 -
[118]
Originally by: Inturist Bring back TomB
and lose the interceptor change? no way! ----------------------------------- I'm working my way through college target CCP need...more room... |
Serenity2005
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:28:00 -
[119]
Your nuts.....
|
Kelmantis
The Greater Goon GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:28:00 -
[120]
I fail to see how this will change the lag problems with fighter drones etc. It is all well and good allowing them to be assigned it is just the fact it will take around 5 minutes for the assignment, then 5 minutes for the person who has them assigned to lock and then 5 minutes for them to attack which is the problem.
Fix the lag, then work on balancing.
|
|
Jakiri
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:28:00 -
[121]
Edited by: Jakiri on 21/10/2007 12:30:48
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
1. Do you like this idea (that is the more-support-oriented idea)?
Not particularly, as it leaves carriers (and to a much greater extent motherships) without much of a role in combat. The only time large remote repping battleship gangs with carrier support has really been useful has been taking down a fully armed pos, and you only need to do THAT if the cynojammer is up, meaning you can't be assured of carrier support.
Originally by: CCP Zulupark 2. If so, do you like the approach we're thinking about (fighter deployment limits)?
Not particularly, individual carriers (and to an extent motherships) are already extremely vulnerable to attack without the change. One of our small roaming gangs managed to take an ISS carrier out at an online, fully gunned, large PoS. Dramatically lowering the ability of carriers, and to a far greater extent motherships, to defend themselves turns this from a small weakness into a critical one.
Originally by: CCP Zulupark Now to answer a few questions that have arisen in this thread.
Are you an idiot? No, but thanks for posting constructively
I like the way that you go out of your way to reply to something like this, but don't reply to people who ARE posting constructively. You're not giving any incentive to give suggestions here, and not supplying any sign that CCP actually listen. It may well be the case that you are, but proving one way or the other helps to calm people down enormously. Don't be like your pet economist.
Originally by: CCP Zulupark 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? 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?
That analogy doesn't work, as the similarities between aircraft carriers and carriers are fairly limited in scope (not even considering motherships). In addition, that's where they are now, excluding lowsec motherships, which are a different issue entirely.
Originally by: CCP Zulupark 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?
The fact that they can control more drones? I dunno.
If you made a battleship a fast frigate sized ship with sig radius bonuses, there wouldn't be any difference between them and interceptors aside from the cost.
If this change nullifies the difference between battleships and interceptors, what's the difference today???
|
Arana Tellen
Gallente The Blackguard Wolves Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:28:00 -
[122]
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? 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?
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. ---------------------------------
Core 2 Duo E4300 1.8ghz @ 3ghz |
Cruel Fox
Singulerity Dark Matter Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:29:00 -
[123]
WTS MS cheap and CCP move mine skilz out of MS specialized area on both mine amar chars!!!
I have been training for something wich u r now taking away. NP. Move mine SP as well then. And if MS does not sell give me place to reproces it or place to insure and blow it up for a good fee.
|
Tetsujin
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:30:00 -
[124]
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? 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?
Oh man a real-life analogy who doesn't love those. Hey thanks for this, now would you mind putting the person in charge of reducing the amount of lag fighters create on the line?
|
Kappas.
Galaxy Punks O X I D E
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:30:00 -
[125]
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?
They never missed the point of the blog. You have your feedback on every point you asked there. (Majority answers below)
1. No 2. No 3. N/a 4. Lots of skill time/isk invested in making carriers/motherships useful for front line combat, this nullifys them having to be at the front line when they can delegate fighters at a POS and people can warp back and forth for repairs.
|
Sirmonkey
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:32:00 -
[126]
Quite possibly the worst idea i have ever seen.
Make a ship more of a POS jockey? Unable to put out more than a Dominixes DPS if caught alone?
Wake up CCP, you've crossed the line this time.
|
Pallidum Treponema
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:33:00 -
[127]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
1. Do you like this idea (that is the more-support-oriented idea)?
No. Carriers and motherships are supposed to project power. A carrier battlegroup, in eve or otherwise, is supposed to be a tool of offensive warfare. Facing a carrier should give you the "Oh, no! He can kill us" thought rather than "oh no, he can remote rep his friends".
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
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? 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?
Aircraft carriers of today travel with a group of ships to defend against various threats, not to delegate firepower to. An aircraft carrier traveling alone would still be able to launch all its aircraft even if it didn't have frigate or destroyer escorts.
To answer your other question, because sometimes things don't go as planned. Unless you make it so that capitals will be able to bring their support fleets along with them, they will still need to travel alone. On more than one occasion, we have lost and killed capitals that were traveling. Similarily, on more than one occasion, we have had carriers survive because they were able to defend themselves by means of launching drones.
Also, no, the last line of defense has often not been fighters, but rather light drones, and more specifically the ability to launch a large number of said drones before they can be killed off. -- MC's Swedish squidshark
|
GO MaZ
Spartan Industries
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:33:00 -
[128]
Originally by: Rodent
The only problem with carriers and motherships is the lag they generate.
Agreeing with this. The original idea in the devblog would end up with carriers back inside / creeping outside the POS shields before fighters couldn't be delegated from inside a POS forcefield. How boring was that, having your entire capital fleet sat AFK at a POS getting kills while your support do all the work.
If you want to make capitals more teamwork oriented, don't do it by nerfing their individual damage output (and believe it, having to delegate fighters in a laggy battle is going to suck).
We already need alts / gang members to move capitals, making a change like this just means I run 3 accounts instead of 1, sit my carrier at a safespot / POS and use the other two for killing stuff. Note the 3 extra gang members for 1 person, I can't see that doing anything for the lag at all I think the best way to do this would be to nerf fighters' sig resolution so they hit anything below a battleship for severely (SEVERELY) reduced damage, say 10% of total dps output, meaning carriers / moms have to rely on gang members / smartbombs to kill tackling ships, or switch to drones (and get stuck with the 45km drone control range).
Oh also, increase fighter HP and damage and reduce fighter count to max 5 for carrier, 10 for mothership with drone control units giving a damage bonus equal to 1 fighter rather than spawning more
|
Kaakao
Insidious Existence Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:33:00 -
[129]
With only reading the devblog (not the 5 page thread) this sound like a nerf that I really dont want to see.
---- wtb signature |
Arthin Mutin
Vigilantes Rubb
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:35:00 -
[130]
I do not like this idea because.
1. I think carriers should be very offensive with some support capabilities or the option to go full support role (triage module anyone?) 2. Alot of carrier pilots spend alot of money on there carriers and i for one would not trust 100m of fighters to an alliance member i hardly knew. 3. Completely Wrecks capital fights for those Jumping in, For example
Force A has 20 carriers on a gate with 100 support Force B will jump into them with 20 carriers and 100 support, Force A will have all fighters assigned so they are ready to fight Force B will Jump in Cyno into the fight but due to lag and many other issues not be able to fully give out there fighters causing them to have a severe disadvantage.
This alone could potential break the game, it would cause capital gate camps to be unkillable, Who would jump caps into that situation you would lose the fight for sure,
|
|
Elliott Manchild
omen. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:35:00 -
[131]
Reason I have a MS is because I can use it on the frontlines and is alot better than a carrier. Your just making it so that carriers/ms wont even warp in. A few weeks/months ago you was going to stop fightings being assigned from POS. Now you gone totaly diffenret way and made carriers/moms useless in frontlines.
|
Ediz Daxx
FinFleet Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:35:00 -
[132]
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?
1. No 2. no 3. No 4. Becouse it nullyfies any reason to train and fly a carrier/mom other than being a hauler. Wwe already got specialized logistics ships that has the role of a support ship, add a capital/bs class of them to the game but dont screw over carrier/mom
______________________________________ This was a triumph. I'm making a note here: HUGE SUCCESS. It's hard to overstate my satisfaction. |
Steve Dave
Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:38:00 -
[133]
every other single class of ship in the game has the ability to focus its offensive weaponry on a target on its own choosing, in either its own defence, or to attack another player.
what is so different about carriers and motherships that they should not be able to do this?
all this leads to is an increased number of pilots in system, which in turn translates to increased load on the server, more lag, and more whining at CCP about the lag.
this is a bad idea
|
THCS
Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:39:00 -
[134]
This is ******** what about all the people who have trained fighters to level 5 and advanced drone interfacing?
I know I only have fighters level 5 because it adds to my fighter damage when assigned to me and I can have 13-15 fighters out doing 100% more damage if i am attacked..with this change I can have 5 out to defend myself!! so 3 million skill points for 5 drones to do 100% more damage!
Now interfacing 5 omg whats the point the skill just got nerfed and is now useless, allows 1 drone interfacing unit per level but the carrier can deploy 5 drones anyway, why would you ever use this skill unless your sitting at a pos assigning fighters to others.another 3 million sp down the drain :(
so after paying out 1 billion+ for carrier and 1 billion+ for all the skills and training for 8 months your nerfing the carrier into a glorified dominix..without anyway to defend itself. Thanks alot.
|
Jakiri
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:39:00 -
[135]
I'm sorry to post again on the same topic, but that "If we changed a cat to be a dog, what would be the difference between cats and dogs now? None, I say!" argument is going to stick with me forever.
|
Elmicker
Black Sea Industries Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:41:00 -
[136]
Ok, you wanted a constructive response - you're getting one.
WHAT THE **** ARE YOU THINKING?! ARE YOU ON *****?! THIS IS WORSE THAN THE SODDING MINERAL COMPRESSION NERF!!!!
Fighter delegation is all well and good in theory, and is actually something i quite like as it nerfs lowsec solo moms. However, in a real fleet situation, this is impossible. Lag is the prime factor in this. Navigating gang menus and spamming up gang communication channels for fighter requests contribute too. It just isn't viable.
As for the drone limitations? I refer you to my above bolded comments. This makes carriers utterly USELESS. Like, why the **** would you bring a carrier to a frontline situation? Carriers and motherships are now dominixes. Nothing more.
In fact, here's a snipped from a carrier and a mothership pilot upon hearing about the change:
Quote: (@El-Diablito) I've wasted months of training @El-Diablito) for a ship I now have NO desire to fly (@El-Diablito) mother******* *******s (@El-Diablito) five drones (@El-Diablito) i'll have less dps than a megathron
Quote: (13:32:19) (@Rodent) El-Diablito cry more ******, I have 60b invested in a ******* dominix :|
Your entire logic in this is flawed; you spend MONTHS moving carriers away from POS-hugging fighter spammers, trying to edge them more towards frontline logistical support and now you nerf EVERYTHING about them. They're now ridiculously vulnerable to interdictors, and have absolutely no effective offensive capability.
Now: Here's the key thing. You have just made the only statement that has EVER united both sides of this war. Everyone is ****ed, and everyone WILL despise whichever asshat came up with this change if it comes onto TQ. Have a tip, free from me, abandon it now. Say you had technical difficulties or something, like you did with the cloaking change (which is coming when, btw?). Or better yet, just remove the eejit of a dev who came up with this back to whichever cupboard he came from. Lord knows what he'd try next.
|
Otto Bismarck
Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:43:00 -
[137]
If we take any two ships and this has been done before with Dreads vs POS.
Take a thorax with t2 fit is probably worth about 20mil. Take the same fitting and put it on a Deimos, which is probably worth 200mil.
Hands down the Deimos would win every time.
A T2 Fitted Nyx is probably worth about 20bil A T2 Fitted BS is worth about 200mil.
Why shouldn't a nyx completely wipe the floor.
Take any two ships make one worth literally 10-100x more and the more expensive one will most likely win. What about all the difficulties in the motherships construction aswell as the other costs involved? The risks to the baby mothership. There's no risk to a battleship builing in a station, yet your 15billion isk baby can be destroyed while in construction.
No I do not like the 'support' orientated plans for the capitals. Think of all the different types of players out there who have shelled out MASSIVE amounts of isk for there ships to use in the current form. If you want to make a new class of capital ship to be more supporty be my guest. However leave the motherships, carriers and fighters should all stay as they are.
|
pershphanie
Deadly Addiction
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:43:00 -
[138]
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.
Not taking sole credit for this gem eh?
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
That's when we decided to just blog the idea, and get some feedback on 2 things: 1. Do you like this idea (that is the more-support-oriented idea)?
**** no. Ask your self this. Would you like the idea of buying a Ferrari and have it turn into a minivan after a couple months?
People didn't train for carriers so they could idle at a pos and assign fighters. Balancing ships is one thing, completely changing the role of a ship after people trained for months and spent serious amounts of isk to get in one is just plain wrong. I'd say atleast 95% of pilots who bought/trained for carriers would not have done so if this is what would happen.
Originally by: CCP Zulupark 2. If so, do you like the approach we're thinking about (fighter deployment limits)?
Yes. But you're going about it the wrong way. In America we have an expression "Keep It Simple Stupid". Just change the "Can deploy x additional Drones per level" bonus into a "xx% drone dmg/hitpoint per lvl bonus" and everyone is happy. No hairbrained schemes about assigning fighters plz.
Originally by: CCP Zulupark 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? 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?
To answer your question with a question:
Have you ever seen 5 rowboats take out a solo aircraft carrier?
Originally by: CCP Zulupark 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?
Motherships do more damage than a carrier.
Seriously dude. Witness protection program. Think about it. ------>PҼſϚի<------
|
Kai page
coracao ardente Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:43:00 -
[139]
If this happens my 200mil fitted domi with RR's and blasters will be more useful than a 40bil mothership because i can use same amount of drones, lock quicker and use guns.
40bil mothership won't lock anything before it pops and they will all convert to carriers and sit at pos's.
For inzi, best cat our there |
burning raven
omen. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:44:00 -
[140]
Just because your new doesnt mean you need to try and impress people by thinking up stupid stuff.
Do you want motherships to sit at the pos now or to get into a fight? make your mind up. if you do this then i think ill just sell my mothership and buy another character and just use 2 normal carriers, save myself billions.
|
|
Karazack
The Littlest Hobos Insurgency
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:44:00 -
[141]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
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?
1. no carriers are enough of support ships already and dont work well alone without a fleet to back them up and be backed up by them (common misconception there, you get the impression that the OP has no real clue about carriers in PvP)
2. no, not at all deploying bigger numbers of drones and fighters is the trademark of a carrier and the ships are still outdamaged by various battleships anyway, let the pilots do what they spend months of training for and dont degrade them to a glorified logistics ship which btw doesnt fit with the descriptions and concept of the ship class at all
the whole concept of launch, assign, launch more, assign more, launch 3rd wave is not practical at all in a real combat situation especially a laggy one (again you can once again get the impression that the OP has no real clue about carrier warfare, sigh)
3. Hm, maybe program a client that can handle lag better which should have been done since years instead of introducing more features that promote blobbing and thus lag like pos warfare 2.0?
4. Carriers are fine as they are (except for balance issues within the class, but thats another matter) and are finally used at the frontlines as compared to earlier when they were just sitting in pos shield assigning fighters
so first you nerf fighter assignment from safe positions (which was a good move imho) and now you want to force fighter deployment? that doesnt make any sense imho
|
Trustus
Dragons Of Redemption Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:44:00 -
[142]
once again CCP change the game to fit the game for the little people and the smaller alliances and **** all the hard work we all have done.
This is NOT a good idea, the carrier main weapon is it's fighters. This will kill the use of carrier use.
/T
|
Savesti Kyrsst
Minmatar White-Noise
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:45:00 -
[143]
This seems like a terrible idea. Not against fighter/carrier changes if they are truly needed, but this is a bit like being a doctor and saying "Oh, a bit of a cut finger? I see. Well, righto, just lie down here, the arm will have to come off. Don't worry, you'll hardly feel a thing, and afterwards your friends will be able to help you cut up your meals and read a book, won't it be lovely?"
Before making any drastic changes please fix the fighter assignment system, there's a reason people hardly ever do it you know. Any time I've had fighters assigned to me they don't show damage they're taking, so I end up sending them back by instinct/keeping as much of a manual eye on as possible. Still doesn't always work
|
0mega
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:52:00 -
[144]
Originally by: Pallidum Treponema No. Carriers and motherships are supposed to project power. A carrier battlegroup, in eve or otherwise, is supposed to be a tool of offensive warfare. Facing a carrier should give you the "Oh, no! He can kill us" thought rather than "oh no, he can remote rep his friends".
This.
Carriers and motherships now not only have the same on-grid dps as each other, but as a drone-specced ship like a Dominix or Ishtar. For reference, here are some numbers using the all level V char from EFT:
5 x Einherji on an Archon: 500dps 5 x Ogre II on a Dominix: 475dps
Why would anyone bring a 1bn+ ISK ship onto grid to do the same damage as a 80m ISk fitted BS? I'm not sure exactly how much experience CCP balancers have with fleet fights, but it's worth pointing out here that remote repping isnt a reason. Most primaries will die long before a capital ship can lock them, let alone cycle enough effective reps. The end result is that 1bn carrier hulls and 15bn mothership hulls are now equally effective when off-grid and safe at a POS, where they can crawl back behind a forcefield long before anything can kill them.
I always saw CCP pushing risk vs reward, but I'm certainly not seeing it here.
|
Arthin Mutin
Vigilantes Rubb
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:52:00 -
[145]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
Originally by: pershphanie
Originally by: CCP Zulupark 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?
Motherships do more damage than a carrier.
Seriously dude. Witness protection program. Think about it.
If the reason for flying a mothership over a carrier is just that it does more damage, what's the change? It will still do more damage if it delegates the extra fighters it has over carriers?
nobody likes the idea save face and drop it now before every carrier and mothership pilot in eve quits or you kill a class of ship.
|
Elmicker
Black Sea Industries Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:52:00 -
[146]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark If the reason for flying a mothership over a carrier is just that it does more damage, what's the change? It will still do more damage if it delegates the extra fighters it has over carriers?
Oh dear lord, you're actually serious...
How can you NOT see the ridiculously huge problems with forcing everything to use fighter assignment?! Have you ever actually played eve?
A mothership or carrier with its fighters assigned out loses all defensive capability. In a laggy environment such as a fleet fight, co ordination of assignment and defense of the assinger by the assignee is IMPOSSIBLE.
Let's not forget the fact that fighters CANNOT HIT SMALL SHIPS. How is a mothership meant to defend itself against interdictors with all of 5 warrior iis?
|
Saint Luka
The Illuminati. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:53:00 -
[147]
Absoluetely aweful idea.
Quite possibly the worst i have seen from CCP too date.
No. -
|
xBlood
Exanimo Inc Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:53:00 -
[148]
Beyond a bad idea...for the reasons stated by the other 90% of eve who are saying no.
|
Molly Neuro
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:53:00 -
[149]
Originally by: ZaKma You keep claiming you want to encourage small scale pvp, yet every single change you make keeps encouraging blobbing.
So now instead of nice cap vs cap fights while the support fights it out on their own, you'll have 50 capitals and 500 support on grid. Every carrier / mom will be assigning fighters to their gang members. The current hardware can't even handle the current state of eve, let alone if every ship in a fleet fight has fighters assigned and starts sending them around.
This also directly nerfs carrier's firepower in comparison to other capital ships. If you do this, then let carriers fit capital guns and give them a damage bonus (obviously not as much as a sieged dread) and better tracking.
Also, this is not balancing. I don't care what you say. This is a fundamental change in how a ship works, completely changing it's current use and tactics. Doing such a change would be fine a week or a month after releasing them.. but not after so long.
This said it all for me
It's a dreadful idea.
|
Tetsujin
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:54:00 -
[150]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
If the reason for flying a mothership over a carrier is just that it does more damage, what's the change? It will still do more damage if it delegates the extra fighters it has over carriers?
The last three pages have answered that question.
|
|
Ixil
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:54:00 -
[151]
well this is certainly an interesting turn of events.
it was stated earlier in the thread that if this change was implemented earlier as part of balancing then fine. I agree with that statement.
However this fundementally changes the role and how carriers/moms can be used
all it does is encourage more sitting at POS
This goes way beyond balancing and I see this as over reacting to e-o forum propaganda regarding drone lag (that both sides of a fight encouter).
ccp with this change all you do is neutre the dog so to speak
the approach that ccp is currently taking towards capitals atm needs to be looked at as whole, the time commitment alone is substantial to the eve pilot if they want to be properly skilled to fly capitals let alone the time and effort takes to build supercaps and caps
Needless to say I think many people will be watching what you actually do
|
1Of9
Gallente The Circle STYX.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:54:00 -
[152]
I usually don't post much on the forums, but this ... i just cant keep it for myself!!
Where the heck did u knock your head on? Are you INSANE? Sure does sounds like it !!!
I owned 2 carriers. Both lost due to been dampened and ecm'ed to hell and back. I didnt even had range to lock my own fighters orbiting ME because i had god knows how many damps on me.
Second loss i was able to lock the ONLY dictor keeping me there, he was OUTRUNNING my fighters 3:1 .. he didn't needed to warp off, he was just too fast for them.
Then i swapped for light t2 drones, tried again, guess what ? he was still too fast. could not hit him. Outside of nos range, web and scram nothing i could do. Some more ships came and again .. i was dampened, could not lock jack. i was sitting duck. (Note: i have drone navigation lvl5!)
finally someone opened a cyno and several dreads finished me off.
It's so unfair been unable to fight back..
Anyway, 4 months of 10hrs per day (average) of HARD WORK i got my mothership!
Yes, i worked for .4. MONTHS, mined, npc'ed, sold assets, compressed minerals, hauled them to 0.0, refined, freightened the mins, when to hell and back to get everything needed. 4 months ...
And now this .. Do you have any idea how impossible it is to stand in a battle field? so easy to be bumped out of alignment even with our own fighters.
Delegate you say? Try to join a 250 men gang, and search for MAGNELIAN or NEILY or THYAGO .. takes ALOT of time .. no go! then what? they jump after some hostile and what happens? do everything again?
So, who is going to pay the 150m+ isk of fighters we put on other people hands? most of them JUST DONT CARE if the fighters die. It's not THEY'R bill.
How about fighters speed? they even cant catch a MWD'ing HAC. What's the defense versus a dictor? none.
Mom's should not be solopwnmobiles, right, but taking away the fighters? How about when people see fighters, they get attacked right away? people do that you know? Most gangs can take on a carrier or mom because the DPS is killed.
This is the worse idea ever. Plz go back to quality control, you are useless here, you are just trying to show work. nerf YOU.
|
Jin Entres
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:55:00 -
[153]
Wow. This certainly ruined my day. Let's see..
ò The skills to fly a carrier take over a year to train and cost over a billion ISK (before the ship and equipment itself). Even before these changes it is arguable whether training for them is worth it.
ò The incentive to be on the battlefield is nigh inexistent. Sitting at a POS is not meaningful, enjoyable gameplay. A long-term achievement should be something enjoyable enough to justify the wait and grind.
ò Delegated fighters, as far as I know, do not receive Fighters skill bonus. Therefore carriers' and motherships' damage output is nerfed by 50% when all fighters are delegated. This is now unavoidable.
ò Motherships cost 15 to 30 billion ISK. They can't dock. Their jump range is pathetic. Their main use has been flexible support, ie. the ability to go into an engagement, kill stuff, and get out -- doing which they still take a reasonable risk of being bubbled by 20 million ISK ships.
Fighters cost 20m a pop, therefore a mothership in combat is risking 400 million ISK in fielding them. Battleships can be insured fully, leaving the loss of a T2 fitted one to about 50-70m. A mothership has to kill 6 to 8 battleships to make up for its fighters.
Remote ECM Burst is a joke. Remote repping capacity is the same as carriers'. Tanking isn't much better, either. The biggest reasons moms are tougher is because people invest a lot of money into pimping their fittings. Even with expensive ass setups, they can only tank the firepower of 7 to 10 close-range battleships. Most blobs that engage moms are much much bigger.
There are no capital smartbombs. Invulnerability to scrambling is losing its usefulness in the abundancy of cheap expendable interdictors that motherships have practically zero counters to. To even have some chance of taking down bubbles that are deployed too close by incompetent dictor pilots you need multibillion ISK officer smartbombs.
EW invulnerability is useful because you can't get damped. That, in turn, is useful for two reasons: 1. you can put your fighters on any target and 2. you can remote rep friends uninterrupted. With 50% to 75% less damage, reason 1 loses its appeal. Let's look at reason 2: it is good to be able to remote rep someone because that will decrease the likelihood of that ship being lost.
However, in order to do so, you need to risk your own ship. And guess what, motherships are quite expensive to risk. If their usefulness on the battlefield is reduced to repping other ships, the risk for doing so is unreasonable and does not justify their use. Carriers are just as good for the job, if even they are worth the risk.
Great incentives for having support for said ships already exists. Fewer and fewer supercapitals are seen daring to come out without a sizable support fleet. Many have been lost both with and without support. When without, fighters have made little difference (in fact, without support fighters are very vulnerable to concentrated fire). They do not autopwn battleships any more than other closerange battleships do. However, motherships move like slugs, so even if you have a scrambler fitted, it is no feat for a battleship to get out of range and warp out. This is to say that having support is already very much mandatory to their effective use.
I sincerely hope these changes will not go forward. Admittedly as a mom pilot my own interests are largely in question, but the points I've made should stand regardless. ---
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong Namtz'aar k'in
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:55:00 -
[154]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
Originally by: pershphanie
Originally by: CCP Zulupark 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?
Motherships do more damage than a carrier.
Seriously dude. Witness protection program. Think about it.
If the reason for flying a mothership over a carrier is just that it does more damage, what's the change? It will still do more damage if it delegates the extra fighters it has over carriers?
This only makes one thing come to mind. Maybe the mothership just needs to be taken, and changed completely into a new ship. with new roles. Keep the carrier the same, and make motherships completely different? ----------------------------------- I'm working my way through college target CCP need...more room... |
Varrakk
Chosen Path Warp to Desktop
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:55:00 -
[155]
There is no way we will bring out multi-billion vessels to the front line, without the firepower to defend ourself.
Sitting there in a Logistics ship, I wouldnt mind, only 100m to replace it. Motherships and even Carriers is way to expensive to risk. The mom's will now be hugging POS shields with their smaller counterparts.
I thought the direction for Carrier class ships was to give them an incentive to be on the frontline, to get us there. We need MORE ways to defend our ships, not less.
This one gets nominated to "Varrakk's Idiot Award of 2007"
|
Emsigma
Contraband Inc. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:55:00 -
[156]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
Originally by: pershphanie
Originally by: CCP Zulupark 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?
Motherships do more damage than a carrier.
Seriously dude. Witness protection program. Think about it.
If the reason for flying a mothership over a carrier is just that it does more damage, what's the change? It will still do more damage if it delegates the extra fighters it has over carriers?
Are you asking this question because you don't know or because of a rhetorical impact?
In both cases, the situation is very scary.
Let me explain why: For me to log in and go and do something with my mothership (that I have about 6 months of training to be able to fly over the carrier skills) I need about 3-4 cyno alts to move me where to fighting is going, then I need an inudstrial char where I land to refuel me and most likely another carrier or a POS to change fitting at. Then I need about 10 people to be able to assist me when I cyno in so that I can actually defend me if there would be a single hostile battleship and a dictor where I happen to cyno in. This is a little bit to much for me to be honest.
Again I ask you, what are your interest in making these changes? What is it supposed to lead to and in what way will it make eve a better game for the majority of the players?
Apart from that I must say that if you ever tried delegating fighters while actually fighting you would know that it is nothing you do while in a second. Most likely it will take 5 minutes to delegate them and then I dont even think the MS pilot have enough time to re-assign again. ---
|
Sick Boy
Minmatar Destructive Influence
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:56:00 -
[157]
Okej to answer your questions:
1. Do you like this idea (that is the more-support-oriented idea)? Answer: NO carriers and motherships are fine as thery are! Lagg is the issue with them in 90% of the cases, the whole lowsec gankage could be solved in another way. Longer locking time on motherships/carriers? etc it¦s duable. Hell even being unable to deploy more then 5fighters in lowsec would be good.
2. If so, do you like the approach we're thinking about (fighter deployment limits)? Answer: NO and YES if you are doing it to degcrease lag issues and boosting the fighters as suggested by a lot. If you are doing it to balancing the carrier/mothership then NO it isent needed.
3. If you liked the idea but no the solution, what propositions do you have? Answer: to lowsec gankage. Make motherships and carriers able to only field 5 drones/fighters in 0.1 and higher. Same as before in 0.0.
4. If you don't like the idea at all, why not? Answer: NO if you were doing this to decrease lagg and whent for the whole 5/10fighters maximum but same dps and hitpoints as current i would buy it. But i think you are trying to alter something that dosent need altering tbh. Carriers and motherships are capital ships. And as it is today they are not so good on their own. (talking 0.0 wars here)
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?
Answer: As stated a single carrier today in rl can field a massive fleet capable of a lot of diffrent roles from subhunting to nuking a country. they need their close range ships for logistics and closerange support (anti missile defense). So basiclly it¦s already the same as in eve today with haulers transporting fuel. hacs and bs to fend of fleets and frigs/ceptors to take out incoming dictors just as a example.
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? Answer: YES thats a way we are seing more and more with capital fights going on more and more were the carrier and mothership do sevral roles on the field from logistics(carrying ammo etc) fighting on frontline using it¦s own fighters and targeting systems, to instant repping of other crafts in it¦s range.
-just my thoughts...
|
Ediz Daxx
FinFleet Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:56:00 -
[158]
Originally by: Tabouli Do not destroy this game pointlessly trying to fix gameplay mechanics that aren't broken when the true problem of server performance lies right in front of you.
Look, im quoting a Goon. Thats how ****ed off about the change i am.
______________________________________ This was a triumph. I'm making a note here: HUGE SUCCESS. It's hard to overstate my satisfaction. |
Ruffio Sepico
Minmatar Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:04:00 -
[159]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark This means you will NOT be able to launch 20 fighters from a mothership and send them all to incinerate a battleship in .2 seconds. It does however mean that you can assign 5 fighters to each of your lilæ friends in the fleet and send them forth to be the messengers of your burning fury.
So exactly why would a solo bs attack a carrier/mom again?
What role a carrier/mom is deployed have to be up to the owner of the said ships. If they want to let them sit tucked away at a pos, or expose themselfs at risk on the frontlines, thats up to the player to decide isn't it? If you want a real world analogy about risk? Read up on the Doolittle raid in 1942...
As for the real world analogy. CCP is in no shape to play the real world card when it comes to EVE. There is so much that doesn't make sense of weapon systems in EVE compared to real world. Or maybe you want Carriers and motherships to be sunk by a few torpedos too?
Home: http://www.hidden-agenda.co.uk
|
Loike
Caldari Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:04:00 -
[160]
Edited by: Loike on 21/10/2007 13:04:03 Change the mothership bonus (3+ fighters per level) to a 30% damage bonus per level.
|
|
000Hunter000
Gallente Magners Marauders
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:05:00 -
[161]
If this makes it in...
WTS!!! 1 chimera carrier with mods and fighters.
So a carrier is more powerfull then a BS.. IT IS ALSO 10 TIMES MORE EXPENSIVE U *insert bad word here* CCP, let us pay the online shop with Direct Debit!!! Magners is now recruiting, evemail me or Dagazbo ingame.
|
Dr Cron
Northern Lights Number 5
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:05:00 -
[162]
April Fools!!!!!
<sig>oh noez did I forgot a smiley face in my post?</sig> |
SirMolly
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:05:00 -
[163]
Good change. It was a wise the decision from CCP to transfer you to the game design team. The lag those fighters and drones are causing is unbelievable.
|
Kcel Chim
Caldari Arcane Technologies The Five
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:05:00 -
[164]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
Originally by: pershphanie
Originally by: CCP Zulupark 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?
Motherships do more damage than a carrier.
Seriously dude. Witness protection program. Think about it.
If the reason for flying a mothership over a carrier is just that it does more damage, what's the change? It will still do more damage if it delegates the extra fighters it has over carriers?
Yes but it will be crap compared to other ships which are far cheaper to get, far easier to get and take far less skillpoints.
As someone else put it, you dont buy a ferrari to get it turned into a minivan (without a reason even).
Problem with Carriers and Mom currently is the fighter LAG. Not their role. Try maybe fixing the actual problem instead of thinking up a complex solution to something which is no problem in the first place ?
Otherwise go and refund all those billions invested in mothership bpos, carrier bpos, skillbooks, equipment and spend training time because thats certainly not what ppl signed up for when this stuff was released.
Back in the days when everything was still t1 and you could literally crosstrain to whatever the flavour of the month was within a reasonable amount of time you could change stuff in an eyeblink and pretend ppl would care about it because they could quickly train up the flavour of the month again. Nowadays it takes ages to get carrier 5 and fighter 5 (prolly 4 months just from 4-5) so dont exspect ppl to be overly happy if the new guy turns up with "last night in the pub i had a brilliant idea" kinda suggestions nullifying all this in an eyeblink.
As others suggested reduce the amount of drones and boost existing ones so we are on the same level. These ships dont need a new role.
P.S. RL analogies are always sucky, carriers also have other weapons and sensors and they dont need to jump via cynofields , through gates or can creep into pos fields. So for the love of god dont mention RL. Thats what ppl always get nailed for in Ships&Modules when they try to explain why something needs to be buffed or nerfed based on rl physics or rl values.
|
Waterfowl Democracy
The Ministry of Indigenous Affairs GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:05:00 -
[165]
It's obvious that any Eve player with a brain thinks this is an idea either completely without merit or game destroying. The only question remaining is whether this thread will be longer than the one about the mineral compression nerf.
|
Auron Shadowbane
Teeth Of The Hydra R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:06:00 -
[166]
can you spell "BULL****"?
well if you want to read it, just look at the defblog you produced.
if you want to balance a ship and at same time cut it's damage to 1/3 (carriers) or 1/5 (moms) you have to boost them in another way.
the first thing you need to make repping your gangmates viable is EW-IMMUNITY (already in for moms) as well as a FAST LOCK TIME and RANGE. Current capital repair module's range is crappy compared to how big fleet battles are. Last but not least you'll need to be able to tank effectively. caps can't tank but not good enough to make them viable as a "repair" platform. Give them capital hardeners (75-80% insted of 50-55%) or something else.
tbh before you nerv ships to oblivion which were one of a few (if not the last one) which could stand its own against 2:1 or better ods you should fix your servers so you can bring your own 1000 ppl to kill their 2000ppl.
and as long as we are on it: its unfair you can't kill a pos in a frig within a reasonable timeframe... nerv poses!
|
Sandra Jones
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:06:00 -
[167]
Lets get this straight, you want capitals only be used in blobs? cause i dont see how a carrier could defend itself with those changes.
|
Daelin Blackleaf
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:07:00 -
[168]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark Righto then.
So a lot of people missed the point of this blog.
No, the blog missed the point, it proposed changes but didn't state why anything was being changed.
1. Do you like this idea (that is the more-support-oriented idea)?
No carriers already require support. It's a carrier, not a logistical support ship.
2. If so, do you like the approach we're thinking about (fighter deployment limits)?
No It drives carriers back out of the battle and gives the pilot less control of his ship.
3. If you liked the idea but no the solution, what propositions do you have?
If you are desperate to increase the number of other ships along side carriers in combat hows about making those other ships fun and rewarding to fly.
4. If you don't like the idea at all, why not? If it's not broken, don't fix it.
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
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
Yes, the community can be harsh, they generally are when an idea is proposed by someone whose job it is to understand the game fails to do so on the same level as many players.
Had this been about the lag we might have been more understanding, as it is not, and since the change is both pointless and annoying are you surprised that people are wondering if you are either an idiot or inexperienced.
Such responses can generally be taken as us wondering why you thought this was a good idea in the first place, especially with so many other aspects of combat in need of fresh ideas and change to make them rewarding again.
All that said please don't feel we're not prepared to listen and discuss, I for one am very glad you brought this idea here first instead of letting us find out on the SiSi when a lot of work has already been done. But do expect, what you may feel to be, over the top reactions to suggestions that the average group of five players who don't even use the ship in question would have been able to figure out was a bad idea. Did you bounce this idea off a few other staff members before bringing it here? If so this is distressing news indeed.
We expect more. We appreciate having ideas and suggestions brought before us, but we really do expect the developers to have a greater knowledge of the game than the average player.
Some will give you the benefit of the doubt, we all come up with dumb ideas from time to time and believe them to be pure brilliance until someone points out the glaring flaw we overlooked, and I'm one of them. I just hope this is not indicative of your level of knowledge about the game.
|
Mitchman
Omniscient Order Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:07:00 -
[169]
Sounds like a really bad idea. Go nerf something else, please.
New video: Pride, Honor & Retribution
|
Lucius Amarriantis
Amarr Ordo Occultus Deus Brutally Clever Empire
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:07:00 -
[170]
Ok, to add my own views on the matter.
1. CCP - first and formost you need to implement a cut off point in your game design policy. A point after a feature is released where you state it has now gone past the point of large scale change. Minor tweaking to a game feature/ship/mechanic sure but large scale change - no. Carriers and motherships have now been in the game for some time, they have been trained for to excess by some. People have sunk an absoutely frightening amount of isk, time and effort into these ships. If you cannot have the forsight to create a game element balanced enough to avoid having to completely change it years later - then dont implement it at all.
2. Stop Interfering - take this as you will but you are the game developers - the creators of the mechanics, the ships, the art and what backstory there is. You really do need to stop trying to push gameplay on people - if something seems to be overpowered then DEVELOP a new feature that allows people to TRY and counter it. you really do need to start thinking more along the lines of ADVANCEMENT/NEW FEATURE > NERF
3. Exactly where are you getting the information to come to decision such as this. When you make a statement such as
"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."
just how did youi ascertain this. Do you have droves of people monitoring the many hundreds of battles across the eve universe and making post match reports on it? Or are you basing these assumptions more on low sec gate campers? High end battles the likes of the current major war? Just how are developing the idea that carriers are widesweeping battleship pwnmobiles? I honestly dont think you have done your homework on this at all. Just to give an idea - a carrier with Racial Carrier 5, Fighters 4, Adv Drone Int 3 launching 12 fighters on an even halfway tanked command ship has absolutely no chance of popping it. how is this a pwnmobile?
To conclude - do your homework before making blatantly uninformed/misinformed second guess assumptions as to how you think battles are turning out - a carrier lasts no time atall already without a decent support fleet. Being this change in and you will kill the role of the ship completely.
|
|
Molly Neuro
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:08:00 -
[171]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark Righto then.
So a lot of people missed the point of this blog.
Or perhaps they didn't and that's why they are so against the idea?
If you're sure that no one "got" your idea maybe you need to express it more clearly?
|
General Apocalypse
Amarr Ship Research
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:09:00 -
[172]
R.etards for DEVS \o/
I hope to god that i NEVER meet Febdhal or this guy or I'm gonna put .45 cal bullet in their useless brain .
Thank you for destroying Amarr , BTW you missed the Revelation , geddon , crusader , harbringer and sacrilege . Nerf tohse then remove all Amarr ship from the game .
Maybe some DEVS need to take IQ test .
Fukc you CCP.
Originally by: CCP Morpheus nerf ccp plz
Originally by: CCP Oveur To the gankmobile!
|
john roe
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:09:00 -
[173]
ok, i only hope this's some bad joke from ccp side. you have already killed super caps, both titans and motherships. who's gonna pay 25+ B for a piece of junk like ms when 2-3 carriers for 2.5B top will do the same if not better job? i mean what were you thinking starting this thread? titan at least have DD to defend itself, but what will ms/carrier has? five drones? i mean like 1...2...3...4...5? bro, you wont be even able to kill a dictor with them bubbling your butt and small roaming gang will own you, and if you put this changes into the real i hope someone will own you on your alt account on trianq.
i'm telling ya, make those changes and you wont see mss on grid during fights. i definitely wont risk mine to lose to such crazy changes. will just laid down logged off and wait till super caps will be super once again.
ccp think. focus on bugs and lag not on making this game even more unplayable. seriously.
szanowanie. jr
|
Endaros
System-Lords Insurgency
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:12:00 -
[174]
So if the lag of fleet combat wasn't enough, now instead of just trying to make drones respond to your order of attacking someone (and even then, needing to travel 80km to attack that target)... Now you want to assign them to someone who will undoubtedly have 5 drones of their own out already, and give your average tommy an extra job to do (engaging drones) while they're attacking primary, realigning, repping, managing EW...
Besides that, as they are, carriers are nothing without their support... I've been in dozens of gangs where we've killed lone carriers to no or very few losses just because they can't support themselves. I've been in a gang of 8 HACs and Command and killed two spider-tanking carriers! Carriers are not broken, so please don't try and 'fix' them...
All this just as my carrier training is drawing to an end... So far it's just been a glorified hauler, now it's going to become a glorified hauler than I can use on the front line! Next time I'll just save the ISK and train for a transport ship...
I know it's a clichT and everything, but my accounts are all going inactive soon due to lack of funds, and this is one thing that may make me rethink resubscribing... Upsetting really...
|
pershphanie
Deadly Addiction
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:12:00 -
[175]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
Originally by: pershphanie
Originally by: CCP Zulupark 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?
Motherships do more damage than a carrier.
Seriously dude. Witness protection program. Think about it.
If the reason for flying a mothership over a carrier is just that it does more damage, what's the change? It will still do more damage if it delegates the extra fighters it has over carriers?
Ever try delegating fighters in a large fleet battle? I have. It's doesn't work.
From what your getting at the problem you're trying to fix here is solo motherships/carriers running around wtfpwning everything. Ok. I get that. I agree that is a problem in empire. But that's not the case in 0.0. You stop motherships from entering empire and that problem goes away.
However in 0.0 small scale pvp is not broken. No need to fix it. I assure you, there aren't gangs of motherships roaming 0.0 with no support right now. Large scale pvp is broken. If you want to fix something, fix that. Less fighters that do more damage does help fix that.
You are fixing a problem that doesn't exist. How does that normally work out for you? ------>PҼſϚի<------
|
Ixil
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:13:00 -
[176]
Originally by: Tetsujin
Originally by: Ixil
This goes way beyond balancing and I see this as over reacting to e-o forum propaganda regarding drone lag (that both sides of a fight encouter).
a. It's not "propaganda" you douche. b. I wouldn't call this an over reaction as much as a complete inability to comprehend the problem.
yes twice per day for that clean and fresh feeling but this topic is about the fighter nerf not feminine hygiene so stay on subject please
|
Ztrain
Evolution Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:13:00 -
[177]
Edited by: Ztrain on 21/10/2007 13:15:14 Wow I can see that the new dev didn't have any skill in quality assurance so he's fitting right in the feature development department. He say's he's not going anywhere. Well that's obvious since a lot of the major development companies won't hire anyone with CCP on their resume lol. Hell I wouldn't want to hire anyone with CCP experience to screw up my project.
Anyways, don't really see the mother ship nurf being that much of an issue. It just makes a lot more sense to take capital components that would be wasted on a non dockable ship and put them in to more carriers. I just remember before when CCP was complaining about carriers sitting at the POS. They wanted them to be up front on the battle field. So now they go and change it to the point where they will now be POS sitting ships again. Showing yet again that CCP development staff have no clear picture of where they want the game to go.
Ether way these are just more changes that make dropping this game the moment Jumpgate Evolution or Infinity become available all that much no brainer. Game design was the only thing making the inferior code worth the play time. Now they don't even have that. CCP (Producers of Slide Show Online) takin the fun out of EVE, one patch at a time. |
Yaay
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:15:00 -
[178]
Edited by: Yaay on 21/10/2007 13:15:57 Quick Summary:
Change AntiBlob tools (STEALTH BOMBER FAILURES GALORE, HOW YOU GUYS SO EASILY FAIL THAT ONE AMAZES ME)
Remove the ability to use smart bombs effectively en mass with/around carriers, ups the damage they'll take)
Remove Massive Remote rep tanks (THIS AID's BLOBING, NOT NERFS IT)
IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID
Fix your damn game's big problems and it solves a lot of the smaller problems
Details:
There's actually a far far FAR better solution to the mass of carriers used on the battlefield. For starters, get rid of this remote repping crap. It WAS NOT what people got carriers for originally.
Allowing Remote repping is the reason carriers are used on the front lines because it allows for a super tank. Remote Assinging drones just does not happen when it comes to carrier pilots. They're waaaay too expensive and people have no real control over what they do. Less not, it's a trust factor, and short of small scale warfare, it's hard to trust so many people.
Removing Remote repping makes a Carrier fleet far far more vulnerable on the battlefield and makes people think twice about using them.
Plain and simple truth is, you guys screwed these ships up from the start and are now back peddling to work your way out of a mess. The Fighters are what make the carrier. Fighters are stupid creatures that do nothing good for the carrier pilot, but under very limited curcumstances prove useful. Remote Repping is very dull and when it comes to POS, and very boring in general.
The irony of the Fix for carriers is that it's basically the same as the fix for everything in this game. Anti blob tools are needed. Fighters are just as much of a blob as a regular fleet. It's not that they're bad, it's that there's hardly any counter too them.
Also, When looking at carriers, look at smart bombs. The reason carriers are overly tough to kill on the battlefield is that smart bombs work too well. I bring 10 carriers, enemy Brings 10 carriers, support fleets the same.... what's gonna happen? Basically any carrier that attacks another carrier is gonna lose all of it's DPS to smart boms and make it rely on the support fleet to kill a Capital. HOW in the HELL does that make sense.
Plain and simple, Capitals tanks are fine, But their Gank is total and utter garbage.
Fighter's are not the Problem, it's the total lack of thought Capitals have altogether.
Those changes Listed would litterally see the end to Carriers. Fleets are too laggy, and Ships too easy to alpha for any remote ship to really do it's job on, LESS NOT IT'S DULL AND BORING. Running a logistics ship on random ops can be fun. Doing it day in and Day out wears really fast.
Summary:
Change AntiBlob tools (STEALTH BOMBER FAILURES GALORE, HOW YOU GUYS SO EASILY FAIL THAT ONE AMAZES ME)
Remove the ability to use smart bombs effectively en mass with/around carriers, ups the damage they'll take)
Remove Massive Remote rep tanks (THIS AID's BLOBING, NOT NERFS IT)
Furthermore CAPITAL SHIPS got way out of control for several reason. INSURACE is killing the economy. IT NEEDS TO HURT to lose a BS in a fleet battle more than it does in 0.0 or when war dec'd in empire. IT needs be Devistating to lose a CAPITAL ship.
You guys have allowed inflation (mainly due to insurance, and shear isk farming in 0.0/agents) to toally screw this game. Where large fleet battles used to not be sustainable over weeks of constant fighting, no-a-days, it's oh well, get another ship time, even with capitals.
Alliance 1 loses 20-40 capitals, oh well, they're replaced in week, lets do it again! This is the new motto of most major alliances. That's just total lunacy. Fix your damn game's big problems and it solves a lot of the smaller problems
|
Grotel
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:15:00 -
[179]
okay so yeah the idea posted in the dev blog is okay but how about this spin on it
normal carrier operation: assigns fighters to members 5 of its own blah blah..
strategic mode"name not decided" activate a mod that removes all speed or makes it travle very slow but gves it all its fighters squads to control sorta like a mobile command base keeps armour and stuff the same
migh help both sides of the argument out
|
Elmicker
Black Sea Industries Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:15:00 -
[180]
Originally by: pershphanie You stop motherships from entering empire and that problem goes away.
Very much this.
|
|
hybridundertaker
Amarr Viziam
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:20:00 -
[181]
this nerf sucks
EvE +NLINE - T+TALHELLDEATH SUPPORTER |
N1fty
Amarr Galactic Shipyards Inc HUZZAH FEDERATION
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:22:00 -
[182]
Ohnoes!
People having to work together in a multiplayer game instead of solopwning?
SURELY NOT!
/sarcasm
Swing away Zulupark, swing away... ============================================
|
Savesti Kyrsst
Minmatar White-Noise
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:22:00 -
[183]
Originally by: Lucius Amarriantis 2. Stop Interfering - take this as you will but you are the game developers - the creators of the mechanics, the ships, the art and what backstory there is. You really do need to stop trying to push gameplay on people - if something seems to be overpowered then DEVELOP a new feature that allows people to TRY and counter it. you really do need to start thinking more along the lines of ADVANCEMENT/NEW FEATURE > NERF
To be honest, this.
Most changes need to be far more subtle than they are. Generally something goes from being mildly overpowered to significantly underpowered. You really need to brainstorm for subtler ways of fixing things. If you're struggling for subtle tweaks, allow players to anonymously submit suggestions under a multitude of subheadings (the vast, vast majority of these will be terrible, but some will be interesting for ideas).
Your game is awesome, but drastic changes when they're not needed put people off. The major changes so far haven't been too bad - speed nerf was needed, and nos changes made things more interesting - though pilgrim needs a slight tweak now. This change - the problem is most people can't even see the need for it.
If what you mean is "we're concerned about people dropping three carriers on a brutix in lowsec" - well this has been happening for a very long time and was 100% predictable.
When you make changes, or see problems, you need to come up with possible minor tweaks, and criteria for making such tweaks. You also need to justify major changes. I fail to see the need to change tracking computers, tracking enhancers and tracking disruptors, and this proposed carrier change absolutely bamboozles me.
|
The Kan
Gallente The Circle STYX.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:23:00 -
[184]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
Originally by: pershphanie
Originally by: CCP Zulupark 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?
Motherships do more damage than a carrier.
Seriously dude. Witness protection program. Think about it.
If the reason for flying a mothership over a carrier is just that it does more damage, what's the change? It will still do more damage if it delegates the extra fighters it has over carriers?
Dude, do you even PLAY eve? ever?
About your idea: NO
|
Xthril Ranger
hirr Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:23:00 -
[185]
Noone will want to jump into another fleet anymore. The one set up in a defensive position with ready assigned fighters will have an advantagelong into the battle while the attacker try to get their fighters assigned. If noone wants to be the attacker there will be no fight.... . you'll never jump alone
|
KIAEddZ
Caldari KIA Corp KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:23:00 -
[186]
DO NOT DO THIS CCP.
SIMPLY PUT YOU WILL BE CUTTING YOUR OWN THROAT.
KIA EVE Home
|
Ima Nutta
Insidious Existence Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:24:00 -
[187]
OK, this is either a really sick joke, or someone at CCP hasn't been taking their medication properly.
You want constructive? How about this:
Make the changes, but reduce the training time from at least 1 year (to be useful) in a carrier to say, oh maybe 3 weeks. That way we can have all the logistics ships YOU want us to have.
Seriously though, what ever happened to the ideal of the players creating the gameplay? I really am disappointed with the almost continual marketing hype about how EVE is a sandbox and CCP doesn't decide the path the game takes. Seems like you guys are only interested in getting everyone to play they way YOU want.
Why not spend less time ****ing off paying customers and more time in fixing things that are either broken or patently stupid. For example, why is it that a mothership should be able to sit at a low sec gate with impunity and nuke small ships and pods? Restrict super caps to 0.0 - that's where they belong. Leave carriers alone, they've been nerfed enough already.
If you go ahead with these changes maybe you should have a buy-back scheme where all the players (like me) who have invested a lot of time and isk and real money (by way of subscription), can be reimbursed for all that effort once you make carriers useless.
Carriers/mum's are big...that's the whole point. A few battleships should not be able to kill a carrier, a large group yes, but not a small group. And by limiting the number of fighters to 5 you are basically saying "leave your fighters at home" to the many capital pilots who don't actually get much of a chance to fly in fleet ops due to real life constraints or timezone differences within corps/alliances.
While you're at it, how about having realistic insurance for capitals? Since you're gonna take away my only real means of defense, maybe you can drop my premiums by several orders of magnitude as well?
When I first started playing EVE I was literally awestruck by what CCP had created. Since that time (almost 2 years) I've become so disillusioned by the number of nerfs that I'm wondering whether I should bother playing any more. I have several accounts with toons from different races. I trained up that way so I could try different ships, and get the full enjoyment out of the game. So far almost every ship I've trained for has been nerfed to the point that I'm not really enjoying EVE any more.
I hear torps are gonna be nerfed again in rev 3...great, there goes my mission running. Oh look, nosferatu got nerfed...there goes the Curse I trained for....I'm afraid to train any other races ships for fear of the almighty nerf bat!!!
My next question then is simply this: will there be a single ship that you want us all to fly so there is total "balance"? How about an Ibis?
|
Maltroc
Asgard Schiffswerften Ev0ke
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:25:00 -
[188]
Fire Zulupark ...
What about the idea to take all the capitals out off game ?
or
Change all the 0.0 to 1.0 ?
another idea is
CCP do something for the money we pay and design new ships . Fill the universe with more dynamic .
---
|
Dan Grobag
Caldari Oyster Colors
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:25:00 -
[189]
I like the change personaly, you just to want to fly solopwn mobile, get back in battle ship.
Maybe make drone control unit give one more personal drone control too. That way you can't be damage and rep at the same time without support, and you still get damage upgrade with support
And reduce triage cycle time please.
|
RaidStream
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:26:00 -
[190]
CCP,
Do you actually play this game? or Are you just nuts?
As it stands a week old noob in a t1 frig can hold down and neutralize one carrier's ability to fight while also neutralizing the drone capabilities of 2 others (yes, dampening maulus).
The recent changes with restricting carriers from assigning fighters from inside POS shields seemed to indicate that you wanted to encourage carriers to be less of a supporting ships and to be further out on the front line. At the same time you limited their ability to cyno out and warp out for Moms. Mixed messages?
I can't think of any sane thought process as to why you'd want to nerf caps and supercaps any further than you currently have. Perhaps this is part of the continuing strategy to maximize player subscriptions by reducing the capacity of experienced players in favour of allowing groups of noobs to have more of an impact on events? I understand this is just an idea, but you really need to listen to your player base.
Ideas really should be driven by the desire to change and improve the game for all players, rather than increasing subscriptions of a bulk of newer players by disadvantaging the long term players. The long-term development of characters is what makes Eve unique, if you continue to minimize the impact of that long term training.. you may as well change the game's title to "WoW in space".
No, just no.
|
|
pershphanie
Deadly Addiction
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:26:00 -
[191]
Originally by: duckmonster Theres a magnificent amount of nerd rage in here from people who think its unfair they'll have to fight instead of fighterblob lagging the system into victories by default. If you could bottle these tears it'd be amazing.
It doesn't go far enough however. CCP needs to get rid of fighter delegation all together and just have 5 fighters per carrier and 10 per mothership. This evens it out much more.
Why stop there? Why not make carriers/motherships only able to use mining drones? Hmmmm. That doesn't seem to go far enough either. Since the changes make carriers/motherships a completely different ship anyways why not ditch the drone bays all together to prevent "fighterblobbing". Maybe ccp should just change every carrier/mothership in eve into a rorquel. ------>PҼſϚի<------
|
McSteve
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:28:00 -
[192]
This is a terrible idea.
|
Daelin Blackleaf
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:28:00 -
[193]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
If the reason for flying a mothership over a carrier is just that it does more damage, what's the change? It will still do more damage if it delegates the extra fighters it has over carriers?
The reason fly flying a mothership is the same as flying a titan... it shows how damned huge your e-peen is.
It currently offers only one real advantage over the carrier, immunity to damps. The extra damage is hardly going to turn the tide, and the improved tank is not much to write home about.
But the point is that YOU are doing that damage, those are YOUR drones, that YOU are in command of. Turning the carrier into the EVE version of a sword bearing squire really isn't doing much to the epic feel of these ships.
|
Drenan
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:28:00 -
[194]
Once again we look like reaping the whirlwind caused by CCP's apparent inability to predict the strategic implications of tactical class balancing on the game.
Is there no-one employed at CCP who sits down and looks at the latest 'great idea' and says..."well if we do this, the impact on x will be y" etc., etc.
The process is simple...before you introduce a new ship type, or 'balance' an existing ship type, you have to run an impact analysis to examine the knock-on effects of the change on the BIG PICTURE.
It is also a good idea to factor in the capability of the game hardware to actually support the implications of a change.
This is not 'rocket science'.
|
|
Jacques Archambault
Forum Moderator
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:29:00 -
[195]
Just a gentle reminder to all people posting here - please keep your replies constructive and polite. Its understandable that this proposal from Zulupark will ruffle some of your feathers, and its fine for you to disagree and voice your concern, however please do so constructively. Ranting doesn't help anyone.
-Jacques
forum rules | [email protected] | Our Website!
|
|
The Economist
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:30:00 -
[196]
Edited by: The Economist on 21/10/2007 13:33:20 Edited by: The Economist on 21/10/2007 13:31:37 Just realised, these changes would make a max skilled rorqual with ogre II's not a bad option for fleets as opposed to a carrier (only about 30dps less compared to a max skilled thanatos with 5 fighters, and ogres are a hell of a lot cheaper, could tractor, salvage and remote rep during the fight too....
/me trains for a Rorqual
[edit: misread]
Sig removed. Please keep sigs to 400x120 pixels and 24000 bytes in size or less. -Kaemonn |
Elmicker
Black Sea Industries Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:32:00 -
[197]
Edited by: Elmicker on 21/10/2007 13:32:23
Originally by: The Economist ...a max skilled rorqual with ogre II's...
A max skilled moros with ogre iis does 1109 DPS. Same thing on a maxed nyx with 5 fighters does 625 DPS. . (Though actually, that's an issue that should be looked at. A moros shouldn't really get its drone damage bonus unless its in siege mode)
|
Fenderson
Finite Horizon Synchr0nicity
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:32:00 -
[198]
I am in favor of the idea of shifting the role of carriers/ms as much away from offense and as much towards support as possible.
the idea you propose is not bad, but it feels incomplete to me.
a better way to balance carriers would be to make fighters less effective against small targets, so that they can be effectively countered.
|
GO MaZ
Spartan Industries
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:32:00 -
[199]
Originally by: Dan Grobag I like the change personaly, you just to want to fly solopwn mobile, get back in battle ship.
Maybe make drone control unit give one more personal drone control too. That way you can't be damage and rep at the same time without support, and you still get damage upgrade with support
And reduce triage cycle time please.
Solopwnmobile? My thanatos, with a t2 / mild faction setup, 25% exile booster, passive repair gang mod (WITH MINDLINK) tanks about 3800-4200dps.
That is 4-5 GANK battleships, and that's ONLY with 4 mids and 3 rig slots filled with cap mods so I can even run my reps - oh by the way, 3-5 nos and I can't even tank that much.
As it is currently, if you go out without a support gang in a carrier or a mothership in 0.0 (even in lowsec with a carrier), you WILL die. Reducing damage output does NOTHING to this, it just means people won't ever use their carriers on the front lines anymore - welcome back to Eve circa 2006, when carriers spent their entire existence hugging a POS tower with fighters delegated to their army of alts in support ships
|
Yaay
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:32:00 -
[200]
Originally by: Jacques Archambault Just a gentle reminder to all people posting here - please keep your replies constructive and polite. Its understandable that this proposal from Zulupark will ruffle some of your feathers, and its fine for you to disagree and voice your concern, however please do so constructively. Ranting doesn't help anyone.
-Jacques
When developers post Crap like that, and the entire forum turns on them, i think it's more than a rant, i think it's a statement.
|
|
Jane Spondogolo
NoobWaffe
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:32:00 -
[201]
How about just doing this;-
Reducing fighters to 6 for carriers, 13 for fighters, and no delegation, then give them some sort of siege mode.
If the siege mode makes the fighters and the carrier much tougher to kill, and made the fighters much nastier, but at the expense of the fact the carrier cant warp out, or retract the fighters during the siege cycle, then you'd have a situation where
A) The carrier loses nothing in DPS, but gains some strength B) Much less fighters = much less lag C) Make it a strategic decision. Does one commit to the fight or not? If one does the fight promises to be brutal, but if you don't commit, well you have a fairly nerfed ship.
Its a win win solution.
______ Unrepentant Southern Federation Cheerleader.
|
Gragnor
Ordos Humanitas
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:34:00 -
[202]
The Problem ... we feel that capital ships are being used way too much as better-than-battleships-at-killing-stuff ships, when we in fact think that they should be used more as the-ships-that-keep-other-ships-alive-and-provide-them-with-additional-firepower ships.
The solution Look at the ship bonuses and make them so attractive that they will be brought and used on the front line for logistics. That is, make the bonuses so attractive that to not use them would be criminal.
Motherships are now quite vulnerable to bubbles, so to say they don't need forepower is to misunderstand that point. The motherships' firepower is its drones and fighters. Do not remove them; otherwise that ships becomes another very expensive piece of junk.
The other point is that when you have 100 v 100 fights; lag is so bad that by the time the mothership has locked someone up - they are normally in a pod which kind of defeats the purpose of capital ship logistics!
|
Jasmine Constantine
Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:35:00 -
[203]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark Righto then. 1. Do you like this idea (that is the more-support-oriented idea)?
I don't like it at all. I'm a pilot who flies for a non-territorial guerrilla warfare alliance and I see my carrier as a force-multiplier to allow our smaller gangs to compete with larger alliance blobs - utilizing a mix of front line firepower and remote repping. Our idea is to see 4-5 well skilled Star Fraction carriers helping our support gang of 12-16 battleships being able to stand against 50-60 random alliance rabble battleships and carrying the day. Its basically a way of putting more risk (and isk) on the table to carry the fighting in medium sized engagements.
I put a tank and reppers and drone control units on my carrier for the reason I want it in the thick of the fighting and I personally dislike all this POS/Station hugging stuff that would be the norm in your proposal.
Quote: 2. If so, do you like the approach we're thinking about (fighter deployment limits)?
Absolutely not. I think you have to fight alternative solutions to reducing blob warfare and the lag that is a natural and unavoidable consequence of that. I skilled up to Gallente Carrier V for the statistics listed on the vessel and I don't think forcing my ship to be a POS hugging remote support vessel is a fair return for the investment.
Quote: 3. If you liked the idea but no the solution, what propositions do you have?
Don't like the idea or the solution. I'd suggest this one gets thrown back into the waste-paper bin before too much time is wasted on it. You guys really need to be looking at the baseline problems with POS/Sovereignty/Cyno jammer stuff before you start looking to nerf individual classes to solve lag in uber fleet fights. Remember that you do have a lot of players that play the game to engage in smaller scales of battle and use your capital ships in more limited engagement. Please do not make sweeping game changes directly on the result of watching BoB and Goonswarm blob and lag jerk 193130131930139 carriers at each other. They are the noisiest people on the forums granted - but there is a whole other game out there with people skilling for and using this kit for their own battles and confrontations and I tell you not everyone will appreciate being forced to use a POS to make their hideously defanged "support carrier" because you guys knee-jerked on the results of some lunatic lagfest in deep 0.0.
Quote: 4. If you don't like the idea at all, why not?
You are addressing the problem of lag by nerfing a ship class rather than addressing the problem that recent game changes (POS/Sovereignty/Cyno Jammers) have forced incredible blobbing in and of themselves. Now you are making the situation worse by ignoring the fact that some players use these ships outside of huge fleet fights but would be forced all the same to suffer the same reduction in capability and flexibility as the blobettes would in their lag battles.
This in my eyes has been a long term problem with CCP in that you love the idea of the huge alliance on alliance slug fests so much you romanticise the whole business too much and are prepared to do literally anything to make those promo videos true (even if that means hacking up ship stats and making changes that negatively impact the whole server just to benefit the few thousand players routinely doing these things).
Hell, I offer myself as an example. I've got Carrier V, a couple of thanatos, specced for a Mothership - got a few billion in assets and whatnot and I fight for a non-territorial RP alliance that seeks small to medium sized skirmish warfare. I've never been in a battle bigger than 80 a side (and I hated that) - but this character has 68 million skill points and has played since the dawn of the server.
I'm telling you as a long term player please don't nerf a ship class I trained for in good faith to serve the interests of laggy fleet battles.
Star Fraction is recruiting
|
burning raven
omen. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:35:00 -
[204]
Originally by: Ex0dus This idea would not only kill off capital combat almost completely, but would make carriers near useless. 5 Fighters? Seriously?
This isn't great news for people who have spent the months of training and billions of isk getting into a carrier only to find out you want to make it useless and less powerful than a battleship.
If people want to sit at a POS in their carrier it's one thing, but don't make them...
how about this, i fly a mothership because i actually enjoy using it myself not so i can sit at a pos and think to myself ah this is a pretty pos bubble. (i actually play this game for fun, not to make other people happy).
|
Ediz Daxx
FinFleet Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:35:00 -
[205]
Originally by: Jane Spondogolo How about just doing this;-
Reducing fighters to 6 for carriers, 13 for fighters, and no delegation, then give them some sort of siege mode.
If the siege mode makes the fighters and the carrier much tougher to kill, and made the fighters much nastier, but at the expense of the fact the carrier cant warp out, or retract the fighters during the siege cycle, then you'd have a situation where
A) The carrier loses nothing in DPS, but gains some strength B) Much less fighters = much less lag C) Make it a strategic decision. Does one commit to the fight or not? If one does the fight promises to be brutal, but if you don't commit, well you have a fairly nerfed ship.
Its a win win solution.
This idea is as stupid as the one in the devblog.
______________________________________ This was a triumph. I'm making a note here: HUGE SUCCESS. It's hard to overstate my satisfaction. |
Daelin Blackleaf
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:36:00 -
[206]
Originally by: N1fty Ohnoes!
People having to work together in a multiplayer game instead of solopwning?
SURELY NOT!
/sarcasm
Swing away Zulupark, swing away...
The lo-sec Mothership is a solowtfpwn mobile.
The 0.0 Mothership and lo-sec/0.0 carrier are solowtfijustgotpwned mobiles.
The carrier does around equal DPS to a close range battleship, has a tank that a five man gang can break if they have a few neuts and a ten man gang can break in short order without neuts.
Better than a solo battleship, why yes they are. Solowtfpwn mobiles, no. Cost effective, at a cost of 10 to 20 uninsurable battleships, most definitely not.
|
Narciss Sevar
Caldari Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:36:00 -
[207]
I don't think it's the entire forum. This is definitely the right route to go down, whether this is the exact changes to make i think would have to be experienced to know for sure. At least they're thinking the right way.
|
Arzal
Caldari omen. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:37:00 -
[208]
bad.... bad idea....
|
arcantos
Minmatar FinFleet Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:37:00 -
[209]
WTS 2 x Thanatos // fitted + fighters WTB 1000 x Punisher to get fighters asigned to 40 mil sp chars .
|
Tempest Kane
Amarr Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:37:00 -
[210]
This the most ******** thing you have ever done to super capitals and capitals in general.... oh wait.. no its not.
Please stop giving us ships that cost 20-30bill then 8 months later turning them into 100mill Domi's, your taking the **** now ccp.
Get a clue.
|
|
Helen
MASS Ministry Of Amarrian Secret Service
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:38:00 -
[211]
Transferred from Quality Assurance or the meth smoking clinic? Whats there to balance 20 fighters can't incinerate a BS in .2 seconds heck they can't even pop a BC in under 30seconds, and even if it could it costs billions more!!
First pod pilot to lose a Mothership in EvE... err woo |
Luigi Galvani
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:38:00 -
[212]
- Remove fighter delegation.
- Limit amount of fighters able to be controlled at once
- Increase fighter damage.
Fin.
|
Calimor
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:38:00 -
[213]
My game designer self wants to forget that DevBlog and pretend everything read by the devs in this thread is a made-up lie or horrible joke.
And before I punch myself until I forget, let me just say something:
GOD NO. WHY THE HELL DO YOU GUYS EVEN CONSIDER THIS TO BE REMOTELY GOOD IS BEYOND MY MUNDANE COMPREHENSION.
|
WarGod
The Illuminati. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:39:00 -
[214]
1. i love your idea. 2. i hate your idea.
Whats the difference? Number 1 was a lie.
You Know! |
Damir36
Gallente PPN United Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:39:00 -
[215]
Nothing to add as most is said already but speechless by the topic.
My personal opinion is that the Op never has flewn with a Carrier in an extended amount of Time.
It is not possible in a fleetbattle, laggy as it is nowadays to spend time on micromanaging your fighters. You need to concentrate to keep your expensive ship alive without adding communicationknots with other pilots. I fly a Carrier for a year know, traind Carier and Fighter to 5 becauce they are better than a BS. Thats lots of Skilltime and ISK. So I should go back flying a Domi?
Than at least make the Droneskills applying to fighters that you can have mates who are dedicated "Fighterrecievers". But bad Idea overall. Grn¯e Damir
Beware: German Link!:) Deutschprachige Piloten gesucht |
The Economist
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:40:00 -
[216]
You know you've done something wrong when BoB and Goonswarm agree.
Sig removed. Please keep sigs to 400x120 pixels and 24000 bytes in size or less. -Kaemonn |
Soy Lu
Gallente GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:40:00 -
[217]
Edited by: Soy Lu on 21/10/2007 13:43:29 Do not implement this change it is dumb.
I'll just have to make another alt to control fighters, adding more lag. How about you just fix the broken netcode instead of pointlessly breaking stuff that sorta works.
|
Luna Negra
FinFleet Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:42:00 -
[218]
WORST IDEA EVER! Period.
_________________________ Gravity you win again! |
kaahooters
Killson Corp Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:43:00 -
[219]
you ccp have wasted my time for the past 16 months traning for capitals if this "idea" isnt a joke. if this goes through iwill expect to see the time and sp i plowed into carriers and dreds transfered to other skills of my choice and to my subscriptions.
|
Kebbin
Shiva Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:44:00 -
[220]
My, these proposed changes are awful. Maybe people should look into the concept of a carrier and stop changing the game to hurt experienced players. To me, these changes are utter garbage.
|
|
Trojanman190
Murder-Death-Kill
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:44:00 -
[221]
Lower their defenses so that smaller gangs can destroy them... lowering the amount of fighters and drones they can directly control is a little goofy.
|
Jakiri
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:45:00 -
[222]
Originally by: Kebbin My, these proposed changes are awful. Maybe people should look into the concept of a carrier and stop changing the game to hurt experienced players. To me, these changes are utter garbage.
Experience is relative. I have an alt in a carrier, and I started playing around the start of March this year.
|
Gabrielle Atrocity
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:46:00 -
[223]
Edited by: Gabrielle Atrocity on 21/10/2007 13:46:04 Can we get like a player vote or something? Before ANOTHER stupid nerf goes into effect? Noone is even complaining about carriers.
|
James Duar
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:48:00 -
[224]
The problem with the logic here is 2-fold: on the one hand is the underlying assumption that lag need not figure into balancing concerns. This is a HUGE mistake - lag dictates gameplay more then anything else at the moment. The battle for FAT- pretty much didn't happen because of lag. Same with JV1V. Pretty much the same with F-T. You cannot design mechanics in this game without considering the limitations of the server.
That being said - CCP needs to fix the lag as well. Most overpowered fleet tactics are overpowered precisely because of the lag - there's no fundamental reason the fighterblob is overpowered except that it's too laggy to actually shoot it or maneuver around it.
When Goonswarm has complained about figherblobs, they are complaining about the lag - not the actual blob. The lag means you can't shoot it, you can't activate mods, you can't warp out, you can't even control the heading of your ship.
There are a lot of simple measures which could reduce this - drones could be taken out of collision calculations, fighters could be rolled into squadrons and launched as groups of 5.
But we also need lag-aware/click-aware game mechanics. Carriers can't remote rep people because you can't lock them in time. There is every indication that remote rep for carriers needs to be a remote rep field/aura which heals ships within X range if this is to be their role. Instalocking of friendlies/gang mates etc.
Please - do sensible things - and don't start from the assumption that lag does not exist.
|
Xtreem
Gallente Knockaround Guys Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:49:00 -
[225]
sorry this is a rubbish idea, cant say more than that really!
|
Arana Tellen
Gallente The Blackguard Wolves Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:49:00 -
[226]
Edited by: Arana Tellen on 21/10/2007 13:49:27 Case in point - Most of the people in here fly carriers/motherships.
You just proved his point. ---------------------------------
Core 2 Duo E4300 1.8ghz @ 3ghz |
Tao Han
Synthetic Frontiers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:50:00 -
[227]
Originally by: Gabrielle Atrocity Edited by: Gabrielle Atrocity on 21/10/2007 13:46:04 Can we get like a player vote or something? Before ANOTHER stupid nerf goes into effect? Noone is even complaining about carriers.
Hell no, making players decide this stuff would be suicidal. Influence yes, decide, hell no.
Reducing the offensive power of carriers is a good move imo, carriers and moms should never have been anything but supportships in the first place. ------ *snip* Your signature image is password-protected. -Rauth Kivaro([email protected]) I know, CEO was being a tard. -Tao |
Jin Entres
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:50:00 -
[228]
If you want carriers' and motherships' role to be more support oriented, perhaps you should give them some incentives.
How about:
ò Remote resistance boosters ò Passive (titanesque) gang bonuses to gang members on grid / big bonuses to ganglinks ò Area shield ò Effective super defender missiles ò Remote ECM Burst that JAMS ò Capital neuts ò Ship tractor beams (!) ò Remote damage boosters
See? It's not that hard. The weak remote repairing with crippled mechanics we have now is nowhere near sufficient to justify the use of carriers and motherships on the battlefield for support purposes only. Nerf fighters and you nerf their usefulness completely. You have to substitute it with some real functions. ---
|
PauZotoh Zhaan
Teylas Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:51:00 -
[229]
You wanna fix lag? do with fighters what do did with drones in past, make them harder, with bigger dmg but less in air.
What you propose will brake carriers totaly. They right now are easy to kill. Just pop fighters and carriers become defendless. afhter this nerf what next? Only ppl who cant afford/ cant fly/ or whiuch were killed by MoM/carriers will be glad about changes.
|
James Duar
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:51:00 -
[230]
Originally by: Jin Entres If you want carriers' and motherships' role to be more support oriented, perhaps you should give them some incentives.
How about:
ò Remote resistance boosters ò Passive (titanesque) gang bonuses to gang members on grid / big bonuses to ganglinks ò Area shield ò Effective super defender missiles ò Remote ECM Burst that JAMS ò Capital neuts ò Ship tractor beams (!) ò Remote damage boosters
See? It's not that hard. The weak remote repairing with crippled mechanics we have now is nowhere near sufficient to justify the use of carriers and motherships on the battlefield for support purposes only. Nerf fighters and you nerf their usefulness completely. You have to substitute it with some real functions.
Quoted for quality.
|
|
HostageTaker
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:52:00 -
[231]
Please tell me this is some kind of new CCP Dev initiation joke! If not and this change makes it to TQ, I would like to have my months of skilling relocated to other areas.
Oh and worst idea in a long time...
>>> EvE-Online Wallpapers <<< |
duckmonster
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:52:00 -
[232]
I think a great feature would be if you could get in an interceptor, race up to a capship and steal stuff out of its hangar. Grand theft capship style. That'd be awesome fun. ----------- HI IM DUCKMONSTER |
Xaeon
Murder-Death-Kill
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:52:00 -
[233]
I'm with a lot of others on this post, I think that it's a terrible idea. The weakness of the ships shouldn't be their inability to damage others - the very fact that a mothership / carrier goes around without support is what will get it killed.
If you want to truly make them less influential on battles, then have some other means to pin them down or restrict them in situations which are arguably too one sided atm, don't make them useless. Caps in general are already restricted enough by the 5 million cynoblockers that are currently in game - I don't have an issue with them per se - but certainly don't think they should be restricted yet again.
Chapter VII 23/06/07 |
Ricky1989
Caldari Battlestars GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:53:00 -
[234]
Thanks alot CCP, you nerf something that took me countless months and months of making ISK to get. Gratz I am now unsubcripbing and NO! you cannot have my stuff. Love Ricky1989.
"I Can Make A Mess Like Nobody's Business" |
Salmack
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:53:00 -
[235]
Originally by: Kebbin My, these proposed changes are awful. Maybe people should look into the concept of a carrier and stop changing the game to hurt experienced players. To me, these changes are utter garbage.
I could not have said it better. Changes like this are whats killing the game for many players. And would be the straw that broke my back. NO you can not have my stuff.
|
breadcat
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:54:00 -
[236]
Originally by: Tao Han
Originally by: Gabrielle Atrocity Edited by: Gabrielle Atrocity on 21/10/2007 13:46:04 Can we get like a player vote or something? Before ANOTHER stupid nerf goes into effect? Noone is even complaining about carriers.
Hell no, making players decide this stuff would be suicidal. Influence yes, decide, hell no.
Reducing the offensive power of carriers is a good move imo, carriers and moms should never have been anything but supportships in the first place.
QFT.
|
Trojanman190
Murder-Death-Kill
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:54:00 -
[237]
Ive tanked a carrier before in my typhoon... its not that big a deal, and also, for 20 bil+ isk a mothership better kick my ass.
A lot of people seem to absolutely hate this idea. If it goes into effect i think it will say a lot about ccp. But, CCP usually listens to us and makes changes and nerfs based on what people say, I think we are fine guys, I think CCP will listen to us and not make this dumb change.
|
quellious
COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:54:00 -
[238]
Damn, so NPCing in carrier become almost a stupid idea ? :( -
Did you noticed that a pendulum does not swing in deep space ? |
Borgis
The X-Trading Company Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:55:00 -
[239]
worst idea
|
Arana Tellen
Gallente The Blackguard Wolves Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 13:56:00 -
[240]
Edited by: Arana Tellen on 21/10/2007 13:55:53 Give assault frigates a 25% damage bonus to fighters they are controlling, I think that would kill two birds with one stone.
It gives AFs a role and it means carriers while still getting a solo nerf get a supported buff. ---------------------------------
Core 2 Duo E4300 1.8ghz @ 3ghz |
|
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
|
|
James Duar
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:27:00 -
[271]
I'm going to say it again because this needs to be unbelievably clear: if you want to reduce the number of fighters on grid then damage buff the fighters.
Change the fighter model if you want to show 5 ships, but treat them as one. Just don't nerf carriers this stupidly.
|
CobraBytez
GoonFleet
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:28:00 -
[272]
Edited by: CobraBytez on 21/10/2007 14:29:54 I think a more important change to carrier blobs (beyond fixing lag which will never happen) is to severely nerf remote repping. Why?
Suppose you deploy 50 carriers on a gate. That gives you the ability to deploy 500 fighters, or basically the ability to evaporate any battleship that jumps through even without lag, *and* each carrier has the tanking ability of one carrier + 49 capital remote reps on it! And the more carriers you add, the more impossible it becomes to break even a single carrier's tank.
I suggest a change like, say, capping the amount of remote repping a ship can take. i.e. you can only be repped 5,000 hp a second by outside forces. Or something like that.
|
Serena Ku
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:28:00 -
[273]
All you capital pilots need to take a deep breath and remember that this change is by no means decided on, it is an option that is presented to the playerbase to ask for feedback and CCP should be commended on involving the player base in this process. So here we go: thanks CCP for posting this. Going all postal on the devs will only make it more likely the next change they come up with will not be presented like this.
This change is not here to fix lag. It is meant to balance what CCP considers the unbalanced power of carriers and motherships who can deploy the combat power of one or two dozen players worth of fighters by themselves.
|
Gleaker
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:29:00 -
[274]
Nice.....
I'm taking this as an advanced notice to change my skill plans before I get to far along, basically this is going to be more than... never mind whats my 2 cents worth anyways.
Thanks for the heads up.
|
LUKEC
Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:29:00 -
[275]
Oh dear. Certainly good move to increase blobbing.
|
Merrick Solipsus
D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:30:00 -
[276]
If you want to balance Motherships in lowsec just make them scramable like any other ship while theyre in lowsec. Problem solved. With the proposed change you are crippling carriers and motherships, sending them right back to the POS.
At this time last year CCP was trying to figure out how to get carriers to fight at the front lines instead of POS hugging and delegating fighters. One year later you want to send them right back!?
Its said that this is done for balance because "This means you will NOT be able to launch 20 fighters from a mothership and send them all to incinerate a battleship in .2 seconds."
Have you even bothered looking at what it takes to fly a carrier/mothership compared to a BS? If this is the way its going to be I suggest nerfing Battelships, HACs and Commandships because theyre able to kill frigs and cruisers in a second. Ah wait a sec, if you nerf BSs because they kill frigs too easily you need to nerf carriers again because it will all be out of whack.
Why do you think everything needs to be balanced around BSs? So something can kill BSs... whoopdee-freakin-do! There is a reason some ships take much, much longer to fly well compared to other ships! BECAUSE THEYRE BETTER!
Im not sure who Im more upset with over this idea. Zulupark for coming up with it, or whoever hired him into a Dev position when he obviously doesnt grasp the basic concepts of this game, balance, and the difference in ships vs. training time.
|
Popychacz
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:30:00 -
[277]
Originally by: Jin Entres If you want carriers' and motherships' role to be more support oriented, perhaps you should give them some incentives.
How about:
ò Remote resistance boosters ò Passive (titanesque) gang bonuses to gang members on grid / big bonuses to ganglinks ò Area shield ò Effective super defender missiles ò Remote ECM Burst that JAMS ò Capital neuts ò Ship tractor beams (!) ò Remote damage boosters
See? It's not that hard. The weak remote repairing with crippled mechanics we have now is nowhere near sufficient to justify the use of carriers and motherships on the battlefield for support purposes only. Nerf fighters and you nerf their usefulness completely. You have to substitute it with some real functions.
Quoted for quality. Also, fire Zulusomething idiot and hire the guy I quoted. It's that simple.
|
olddone
Confederation of Red Moon Red Moon Federation
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:30:00 -
[278]
Basically a dumb idea. What you are really saying is we did not think there would be so many super capitals in the game.............And another thing, once again blob over might wins again. Fix balancing of number of players that can fight in a stable server for once. I just do not understand how you guys do not get it.
The will to fight is all you need to kill them, and a few friends. |
DrWorm
Shiva Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:31:00 -
[279]
I can only shake my head.
I think the balance team should not be spending time balancing carriers and motherships against battle ships, it's silly honestly. If this line of thinking holds then soon we will have to worry if a cruiser can last long enough against battle ships.
The best way i think to approach balancing as a whole is to balance the ship class within it's ship class. Of course the real challenge is to keep them different enough and still interesting.
Please CCP, Balance team, QA, whoever looks at these things and must give a thumbs up; is balancing carriers against BS's what this game needs, I do not believe so.
Wake guys, it's not about leaving a mark on the game it's making it enjoyable and risk is a big part of that.
I obviously emplore you, No.
|
busta nut
Exanimo Inc Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:31:00 -
[280]
dumbest. idea. ever.
you might aswell remove carriers from the game for all the use they will be after. 6 months of training and multiple billions of isk and i end up in a domi with a jumpdrive.... well done :golfclap:
|
|
Edmund Khan
Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:32:00 -
[281]
I don't mind the changes. But: 1. Why i trained fighters 5, will it only affect my five fighters? 2. If you do it, you need a great improvement in drone GUI and control. I want to see if they are being damaged so i can pull them back, even the assigned ones. And i want them to respond, not 30 min later or never. 3. How will this help lag? There will still be 20 fighters out there. Take 50 carriers, still 600 fighters, assigned or not. 4. "...capital ships more reliant on their support fleet..." So what will they be good for? This feels like the joke, where you take a log into the woods, which you dump to run faster when a bear chases you around. Triage is a joke, why should carriers go to frontlines if we need support to control our drones? Remote repping? Not needed at friendly POS and the dmg is still being done.
Actually, on second thought i do mind the changes. Just make the bandwidth for carrier so they can launch only 5, with increased stats, maybe 30 or 40% damage, hitpoints per fighters 5 skill level. And additional dmg bonus for motherships.
No idea where CCP got the idea big ships must be boring and useless. I thought I earned the advantage with the 3+ years of playing this game. Instead of nerfing caps and supercaps, go nerf the sov wars. or something else.
I miss TomB handlind the nerfbat.
|
RahSun
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:33:00 -
[282]
With a change like this: A battleruiser can permanently tank all the damage you deal with just 5 drones and keep you tackled; provided the carriers don't get a moros style damage bonus for drones under your direct control. Although a carrier isn't meant to be a solo pwn mobile, being locked down permanently by a battle cruiser is a little too much of a nerf to a ship that I spent over a billion and a half isk fitting and getting skills for.
|
Empire marketslave
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:33:00 -
[283]
Originally by: Serena Ku All you capital pilots need to take a deep breath and remember that this change is by no means decided on, it is an option that is presented to the playerbase to ask for feedback and CCP should be commended on involving the player base in this process. So here we go: thanks CCP for posting this. Going all postal on the devs will only make it more likely the next change they come up with will not be presented like this.
This change is not here to fix lag. It is meant to balance what CCP considers the unbalanced power of carriers and motherships who can deploy the combat power of one or two dozen players worth of fighters by themselves.
how would you like it if you spend about 2 bilion or 20 bil on a ship that you enjoyed using and ccp said sorry we are gonna change it so that your weapons only work when you are in a gang. oh and a 200k ship can pin you down so you cant do anything but wait for the boom
|
Zanarkand
Gallente Enterprise Estonia Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:33:00 -
[284]
I support this. And my alt does own and fly a carrier.
However... I personally think that it doesn't tackle one of the important things about capitals - capital hauling.
|
CopyCatz
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:34:00 -
[285]
On the bright side, a lot of people (like me) won't see the need for a second account anymore, so hopefully this change will nerf CCP's income as well..
|
Ashimar Lanora
Amarr The Ankou The Reckoning.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:34:00 -
[286]
Explain to me how this change will:
1. Encourage Motherships to be on the front lines at all. 2. Encourage anyone to Make/Buy a Mothership when 3 carriers with Carrier 5 and 2 DCU are equivalent to one Mothership with Carrier 4? (give or take one fighter).
Think about it. 30 billion ISK vs. 3 Billion ISK. If you do this, Motherships (and carriers to a lesser degree) need HUGE defensive buffs. Since we can't assign fighters from INSIDE a shield, sitting in front of a POS has never been safe, we can't dock, we have to do everything in space. Motherships will just become a huge freighter.
Nice job, CCP. This is bad. Mmkay? |
War Bear
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:34:00 -
[287]
If you're going to put this mess of a "fix" in you better start lowering the costs of carriers and motherships. If a carrier can only do 5 fighters worth of damage then its going to be a damn near useless isk sink. You'd be better off in a battleship.
In a lag filled environment (your problem NOT ours btw so don't push your crap down our necks because your hardware\software can't handle it) it'll be damn near impossible to get these damn things assigned and functioning. Drones already have issues behaving ai wise in a laggy environment and your solution is to fix it with a sledge hammer?
The original drone nerf I can understand. Hell it wasn't even a nerf. All it did was take less drones and give them more damage each. Fewer drones = less lag plus you gave us some extra goodies for the trouble. Good on you. What's the incentive to use a carrier if you're nothing but a glorified drone dispenser that can't even use his own drones?
Carriers are already reliant enough on the support fleet for everything as it is. Cyno generators, small\medium support to clear tacklers, medium\heavy support to go after enemy battleships and fighters. Carriers are very, very much a fleet ship already but apparently thats not enough for the likes of you. Considering the skills and costs to get into a carrier its fairly sickening to see something like this even be suggested.
I was going to start my carrier training fairly shortly but if anything resembling this goes in I won't be touching the f'ing things.
Everything is funny with the Benny Hill theme song |
Mr ZER0
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:36:00 -
[288]
Another fantastic idea!!!! not whats the use of spending a year training carriers skills drone skills nav skills etc to fly a carrier then have it only use 5 freaking drones???? and you want carriers to be fleet orieanted ships which is great but any fleet battle thats bigger then 2 v 2 laggs to hell so yes i think its a wonderful idea
|
prsr
Gallente JuBa Corp RONA Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:36:00 -
[289]
Originally by: Serena Ku This change ... is meant to balance what CCP considers the unbalanced power of carriers and motherships who can deploy the combat power of one or two dozen players worth of fighters by themselves.
You have no idea what you are talking about. -- .sig apathy ftw |
Mirauder
Synergy. Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:36:00 -
[290]
Originally by: busta nut you might aswell remove carriers from the game for all the use they will be after. 6 months of training and multiple billions of isk and i end up in a domi with a jumpdrive....
Signed signed signed signed.
|
|
Stephen HB
Mystical Knights Legionnaire Services Ltd.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:36:00 -
[291]
And this, children, is why your parents say "Don't kick hornets' nests."
Now Zulu, would you like some cream for that new orifice you're sporting? ----------
Signature core stabiliser II activated. This sig is immune to mod tampering! Rawr!
EVE Tracking Guide |
Abyss Jack
Asgard Schiffswerften Ev0ke
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:36:00 -
[292]
this is a joke right? i bet ccp is doin that kind of nerf for a free performance upgrade nothin more... ---------------------------
|
oDDiTy V2
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:38:00 -
[293]
This is the most ******* ******** idea I have ever seen.
|
Robet Katrix
Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:38:00 -
[294]
5 (fighter5) fighters = about 600 dps i think.
5 Dominix heavy drones = about 600 dps.
Carrier + Fighters = 1.5BIL Carrier + fighter 5 training time. = 1 year
Dominix + drones. = 75mil Dominix training time(BS 5 DI 5) = 2.5 months.
|
p0pup7arge7
Shooting Gallery
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:38:00 -
[295]
Originally by: Serena Ku All you capital pilots need to take a deep breath and remember that this change is by no means decided on, it is an option that is presented to the playerbase to ask for feedback and CCP should be commended on involving the player base in this process. So here we go: thanks CCP for posting this. Going all postal on the devs will only make it more likely the next change they come up with will not be presented like this.
This change is not here to fix lag. It is meant to balance what CCP considers the unbalanced power of carriers and motherships who can deploy the combat power of one or two dozen players worth of fighters by themselves.
That against another ship of the same class is fairly easy to tank.
|
Mag's
MASS Ministry Of Amarrian Secret Service
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:39:00 -
[296]
Edited by: Mag''s on 21/10/2007 14:39:43 So you're telling me now, i've wasted nearly two years on skills for a ship, that I will no longer be able to use. Because lets face it, why would I field an MS when the cheapest cousin the Carrier can do it just as badly.
And what about the time wasted on the skills, are you going to re-asign them to other areas for me?
If you had ever flown an MS, you would know that the use of smaller drones, can be the difference between getting out alive or dead. This will in no way help anyone, not even the server,.
I'm sat here gob smacked.
Mag's
|
Crohok
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:39:00 -
[297]
Originally by: Empire marketslave
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
woaw it's gonna be soooo cool to assign fighters to fleet members ! i'm so impatient ! what a funny game sitting and assign fighters and keep 5 for you ! /quit |
captain dak
Gallente Miners And Designers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:39:00 -
[298]
well, ignoring what everyone else is saying, i think this is an excellent change and will greatly balance carriers and motherships. the one thing i didn't see anyone else thinking about is the fact that in rev3 theres a whole new line of t2 ships coming out which, with the changed carriers and mothers, working together i think they will become "the-ships-that-keep-other-ships-alive-and-provide-them-with-additional-firepower ships" that you are going for.
|
Dufas
Amarr Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:41:00 -
[299]
Edited by: Dufas on 21/10/2007 14:42:48
Quote: The truth is that this idea is about as popular as Michael Vick at a PITA rally
i think thats PETA
WTS: fully fitted archon ----------------------------------------
|
Sidewayzracer
Caldari Murder-Death-Kill
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:41:00 -
[300]
not exactlly sure what type direction there trying 2 steer away from but if its about moms camping low sec then y not make supercaps banned from low sec??
leave drones as they r now.
|
|
Stradivarious
Minmatar Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:42:00 -
[301]
Hmmm, how can I phrase this to make you understand how horrible an idea this is.
Well, let me put it this way. If this change went through, I'd promptly remove every module from my Hel, melt the fighters down, and self destruct the Hel, returning the isk to Seleene... Why? Not as a tantrum or anything like that, simply because it would not be worth my time to fly it, let alone the months I invested in maxed drone subskills, fighters 5, JDC 5, carrier 5, etc....
Supercaps were designed to be powerful, I actually like the new bonus the Nid and Hel have, but removing all its firepower is absolutely stupid.... You do realize of course that when you delegate, all the carrier pilots skills and ship bonuses no longer apply, right? Meaning you just stripped the Nyx/Thanatos of it's primary benefit....
Yes, the lag issue needs to be fixed, not by reducing the numbers of fighters carriers/moms can field, not by nerfing them so they are no longer on the front lines(in direct contravention of prior dev blogs), but by better code. I realize CCP has gone they way of fewer programmers with it set up so non programmers can make simple changes, but you guys have shot yourselves in the foot.... More code monkeys plz...
Sure, bring a knife to a gunfight. |
Serena Ku
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:44:00 -
[302]
Originally by: Empire marketslave
how would you like it if you spend about 2 bilion or 20 bil on a ship that you enjoyed using and ccp said sorry we are gonna change it so that your weapons only work when you are in a gang. oh and a 200k ship can pin you down so you cant do anything but wait for the boom
The pilot flying that 200k ship is paying exactly the same to CCP as you are. And it's not like he can kill you by himself and you cannot fit energy neuts. If he has a big fleet helping him and you don't you deserve to lose your ship.
|
Auditor Stone
Ascendant Strategies Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:46:00 -
[303]
My View:
1) This is a stupid poorly thought out idea. 2) CCP Zulupark, if your the one who thought of this, you should be sacked from CCP. Harsh? Maybe. I am again a little p***ed with the whole Nerf Bat Quota, and the fact it seems CCP staff must nerf x number of ships each month.
Reasonings...
My main character Agent Stone has Gallente Carrier V, a soon to be pointless 60 day skill apparently. The 5% bonus to damage, and 1 extra drone per level will become pretty wasted.
After the logistics (GSC) nerf, and no drones inside POS shield nerf that CCP did on Carriers a while back, I was already frustrated, but moved on with the idea that my Carrier should be on the front lines.
I have trained for Capital Shield and Armor Remote Rapair Modules in a bid to get my Isk and Training times worth from the Carrier. Even working towards Triage, although its uses are limited in the field.
Now it seems that your nerfing the Carrier on the front lines role. I want to jump on a gate, and be able to deploy fighters, manage my own fighters, and remote rep allies a little, as needed without being in Triage as the cycle time is normally longer than a small engagement.
If you implement this patch...
- I can either have a Carrier that can sit on the edge of a POS Shield, giving fighters to allies. - I can use Triage Mode, which is not often called for. - Or simply fly a Dominix, or Onerios...
Then again, apart from this account which is active only for forum posting or skill changes. I don't play Eve Online anymore anyway. My main account with Agent Stone on who flys the Carrier is inactive at present.
I was thinking of returning when CCP advised of new content like T2 Battleships, but then if Carriers are nerfed further, I see no reason to return as you guys simply Nerf everything thats fun about this game.
This constant nerfing is getting a bit stupid really.
Also, does this change not mean a Moros Dread can do more damage directly than a Thanatos Carrier...?
Also Also, that would mean a 1Bil Isk Carrier, or a 20Bil Mothership is unable to break the tank of a 60mil Battleship. WTH!?
Here are some ideas if you need something to do... 1) Fix Drones (See one of the hundreds of threads on forums) 2) Allow a setting so fighters don't follow in warp, as normally, that ability leads to fighters being killed. (In the year of flying a Carrier, not once has that ability been useful, or resulted in a additional kill. Only losses of Fighters/Isk.)
/me end's his rant...
Still, Hellgate London released soon though, so maybe that will be good enough to replace Eve.
|
Pendri
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:48:00 -
[304]
guys..guys.. hnja, one more briliant idea:
what they really need to do, is put a siege module on a cruiser, now that would rock
think of it, crusier siege mode, uber cool
it can eve have some sort of fireworks display when you turn it on
how cool would that be |
Karnov
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:48:00 -
[305]
1. Do you like this idea (that is the more-support-oriented idea)? No, carriers and MS are on the front lines fighting because that was what I believe you intended, your now changing that.
2. If so, do you like the approach we're thinking about (fighter deployment limits)? No, it is an unreasonable shackle. For numerous reasons a capital can get jumped, your just setting them all up to die unable to protect themselves. And if you ask how that can happen it's simple, it will be outside a shield delegating fighters and an enemy group can jump on it while the friendly fleet is dictored in a fleet fight. Maybe it has to travel 5km to get its fighters back because they're bugged (plz plz fix). Maybe its bumped of a station (carrier) while undocking while trying to jump to a system to provide "support".
3. If you liked the idea but no the solution, what propositions do you have? Fix the triage module so it does something useful, add a function where it can be turned of instantly and also adds 2x recharge rate to capacitor. Atm it just turns a capital into a coffin as its cap gets burned out 2x, 4x as fast.
4. If you don't like the idea at all, why not? I got my carrier to support and contribute to a fleet in combat, this will remove any value of a carrier above being a hauler. Also not everyone has Drones 5 to control 5 fighters, also you'd have to provide them to support as BS fleets tend to melt anything they manage to lock.
Have you even played EVE or taken part in a fleet fight? Yes A 600-800 man fleet fight? (They're getting quite common down south these days). I see a big fleet fight after your changes like this for a carrier: 10-30 minutes to launch 5 fighters, 10-30 minutes to assign, 10-30 minutes to drop next 5, 10-30 minutes to assign, assigned pilot crashes/dies, 10-30 minutes to assign AFTER 10-30 minutes of them returning to the carriers control. Also add 10-30 minutes for pilot to get the update he has fighters and another 10-30 to tell them to do anything.
Why shouldn't a mothership be able to defend itself???? 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? Capitals can get jumped, we can't always spare 20 people to protect every mothership.
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? Hauling capacity, survivability (better tank), remote repping ability, fighter numbers.
|
Grimpak
Gallente Trinity Nova KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:49:00 -
[306]
Originally by: Jin Entres If you want carriers' and motherships' role to be more support oriented, perhaps you should give them some incentives.
How about:
ò Remote resistance boosters ò Passive (titanesque) gang bonuses to gang members on grid / big bonuses to ganglinks ò Area shield ò Effective super defender missiles ò Remote ECM Burst that JAMS ò Capital neuts ò Ship tractor beams (!) ò Remote damage boosters
See? It's not that hard. The weak remote repairing with crippled mechanics we have now is nowhere near sufficient to justify the use of carriers and motherships on the battlefield for support purposes only. Nerf fighters and you nerf their usefulness completely. You have to substitute it with some real functions.
also fix the damn triage module, allow the carriers to be remote repped while in triage (feasible?), and give all carriers and motherships 8 high-slots, a minimal ammout of gun slots and dmg bonuses to them.
also, shameless input while I quote my earlier post on this thread below:
Originally by: Grimpak Edited by: Grimpak on 21/10/2007 13:21:17 bah.
I always considered carriers and motherships as support ships, BUT as firepower AND logistical support. This proposed idea is too much incomplete tbh, and it ruins the firepower support role of the carriers.
you want this idea to work out?
1st - give guns to them carriers and bonuses (heck it can even be like 1-2 guns for carriers and 2-3 for motherships and bonuses of like 25% per carrier level or smth). 2nd - improve the triage module, as in allow remote reppers to be used in a triage'ed carrier AND give like a 500% cap regen bonus to it. 3rd - improve carrier and mothership survival overall (by giving more hp or more cap or something). 4th - saw this in a post before, but how about making Afrigs the perfect pair for them carriers? fighter bonus? kinda weird idea but I see it working. 5th - give them gang bonuses. like titans. 6th - give more hi-slots. 8 to either them carriers or motherships. in addition to not make the hi-slot setups equal between carriers and motherships, give a few more logistical bonuses to motherships.
that way we have carriers and motherships that: 1 - shoot stuff actually; 2 - are nice to have in gangs with their bonuses; 3 - don't die when using triage mode; 4 - be used in frontlines actually; 5 - gives usage to the most useless T2 ship in game while you're at it.
carriers and motherships itself are fine. what is wrong is the lag situations where they are used, meaning: blobs.
---
planetary interaction idea! |
Terdlinger
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:49:00 -
[307]
Alot of people are gonna stop playing eve if this idea is implimented. time spent training for cap ships and there other needed skills etc etc, As for server lag caused by fighters and the like ? i see fleet battles being fielded with ever more carriers and moms just to make up for lack of fighter deployment, how will this help server side lag? no realy i think this idea is rather silly ,and not based on anything we have learned so far . Please CCP do not go down this route merely to make you look good at reducing server lag . If someone had told Admiral Nimitz he could only launch 5 fighters from his carriers, would they have even bothered to build them?
|
Vherokan
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:50:00 -
[308]
I fail to see how this would help lag at all.
Scenario A: Status Quo -Big capital ship fleet near POS (or on gate, whatever), fighters in drone bay -Mixed fleet (battleships, etc) sitting on the gate waiting
Scenario B: Moronic Nerf -Big capital ship fleet near POS, fighters assigned -Mixed fleet at gate, hundreds of fighters flying around them
Seriously, how would that help lag?
What are we going to do? Kindly ask people to wait while we assign our fighters?
"Sir! The 500 man enemy fleet has just jumped in, they're warping to us now!" "****! See if they'll wait 30 minutes while we figure out fighter assignments!"
|
Jurgen Cartis
Caldari Interstellar Corporation of Exploration
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:52:00 -
[309]
Originally by: Robet Katrix 5 (fighter5) fighters = about 600 dps i think.
5 Dominix heavy drones = about 600 dps.
Carrier + Fighters = 1.5BIL Carrier + fighter 5 training time. = 1 year
Dominix + drones. = 75mil Dominix training time(BS 5 DI 5) = 2.5 months.
Its 500 DPS for 5 Fighter V fighters, 625 on a Carrier V Thanatos or Nyx, 475.2 DPS from the Dominix, but the Dominix has guns too.
Well, I guess this means I get to experience the awesome firepower of the new Carriers every day when I undock in my Dominix. -------------------- ICE Blueprint Sales FIRST!! -Yipsilanti Pfft. Never such a thing as a "last chance". ;) -Rauth |
cflux
Caldari FinFleet Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:52:00 -
[310]
There is a unwritten rule in the industry that you never raise a mans position from QA to game development.
You are a proof of abusing that rule.
-- Lord Chaos - Only add Fluxcage. |
|
Isben Yamas
COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:52:00 -
[311]
Nice modification!
Now decrease cap ship hps and we will have nice fights!
Only one thing, why nerf normal drones? Launching 10 heavy drones is not uber...
Isben
|
Nyphur
Pillowsoft Total Comfort
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:53:00 -
[312]
Originally by: Karnov
Quote:
Why shouldn't a mothership be able to defend itself???? 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?
Did he actually say that? O_o. Does this Zulu fellow even play Eve?
Eve-Tanking.com - We're sorry, something happened. |
Druadan
Gallente Aristotle Enterprises Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:53:00 -
[313]
Seriously. I had to check the date, I thought I'd slept in and April 1st had rolled around.
What the **** is this ****!? You can't remove the carrier's drone-weilding capability to five fighters, that's absolute insanity!? We want more people using these things on the front lines, not sat at POSes dishing out fighters. This is the most ridiculous suggestion ever to grace the devblog. I hope CCP realise just how many second accounts are carrier piloting characters, and how many of those people will be closing those accounts (including myself) if this change goes through.
I don't think the person who suggested this change has any idea about capital combat OR battleship combat, and were it not for the grave nature of this suggestion, I would find it highly amusing that such a moonbrain idea came from a Quality Assurance person. This proves one thing: CCP need to vet their nerfbat-wielders more heavily.
Now where do I make an official complaint?
### I nearly finish carriers, and they nerf it. I nearly finish Amarr recons, and they make them useless. Vagabond pilots beware... I have bought Minmatar Cruiser. |
Zachri
Minmatar IVC Consortium INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:55:00 -
[314]
This is almost silly tbh.
The balance can be restored much more elegantly, while still making it attractive to keep people on capital ships.
1. Slightly beef the relative impact of bombs against fighters (none really right now on Sisi)
2. Allow configuration of POS weaponry for alliance use instead of only corporate use for the POS Defence Management skill.
Much simpler, elegant, and without discouragement.
|
Mr Funkadelic
Tenacious Danes Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:55:00 -
[315]
Originally by: Perpello 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.
Yep i bet, or atleast lets hope - Coz this gota be a joke.
|
kaahooters
Killson Corp Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:56:00 -
[316]
Originally by: Nyphur
Originally by: Karnov
Quote:
Why shouldn't a mothership be able to defend itself???? 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?
humm....i dunno , mabey your support fleet has been dded and you are the only one left with carriers dyinbg around you? you have never been in a fleet fight have you mr dev sir.
|
oDDiTy V2
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:57:00 -
[317]
By the way, I hope CCP are prepared to refund the game time and skill training points of every carrier and mothership pilot in the game if this change takes even another step forward.
Originally by: 'CCP Wrangler' However, these changes are made with the overall game in mind.
No, this change clearly didn't have the game in mind at all. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the person who has proposed this change hasn't got a damn clue what 0.0 warfare is about.
|
Rina Tsukimura
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:57:00 -
[318]
Seems a bit overzealous to me.
Perhaps the fighter deployment limitation is fine - it's a bit mean-spirited to change it after so many people have spent so much time and money training to use it the way it's currently implemented in game, but it certainly would reinforce the intended role of carriers as CCP apparently sees it. I would think you'd at least want carriers to perform better than a dominix when it comes to drone deployment, however.
Consider limiting fighter deployments as blogged, but continue allowing non-fighter drone-blobs.
|
Law Enforcer
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:58:00 -
[319]
Originally by: Serena Ku
Originally by: Empire marketslave
how would you like it if you spend about 2 bilion or 20 bil on a ship that you enjoyed using and ccp said sorry we are gonna change it so that your weapons only work when you are in a gang. oh and a 200k ship can pin you down so you cant do anything but wait for the boom
The pilot flying that 200k ship is paying exactly the same to CCP as you are. And it's not like he can kill you by himself and you cannot fit energy neuts. If he has a big fleet helping him and you don't you deserve to lose your ship.
you know you need to fire your "balancing" department when a 200k ship can pin down a 2/24billion isk CAPITAL ship. why don't I go get in my tug boat and try to down the US Enterprise and see how far I get.
|
XY55XTY
Amarr The Fizzy Drink Corp
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:58:00 -
[320]
Sorry CCP, send this guy back to his old department!
There is only so much nerfing a game can take and this protential nerf takes the BLEEP!
|
|
Darpz
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:00:00 -
[321]
Edited by: Darpz on 21/10/2007 15:04:10 Hopefully this won't get missed and will get read
This change will do nothing to reduce the core problem of less lag and it will only encourage more blobbing. Carriers will no longer be used on the front lines in fleets, moms will be pretty much useless. carriers and moms are supposed to be force multiplyers, which means they bring weight to a fleet to reduce the amount of people you need against a all support fleet. use this to your advantage to reduce lag.
my solution would be to revamp drones
My first change would be there is no longer individual drones, there are drone squadrons. to the server the drone squadron would be a single drone with a multiplier on it for the ROF and HP to correspond with the amount of drones in that squadran. to the client it would see the squadron with 1-25 fighters/drones in it working in one group in formation.
Only tricky thing would be how to deal with drones getting destroyed. best way I can think of is to when the fighters/drones are shot they have the HP of the entire squadron but would lose dps as they take damage until they are at 0 where the whole squadran is destroyed.
on delegating fighters. the mom/carrier will be able to break there fighter squadrans into 5 fighter blocks and delegate them out, if you want to encourage deploying drones to other ships ad something like increased speed or tracking when assigned to a field ship.
another cool thing is this will allow drone boats to go back to showing lots of drones (which looked really cool). since it won't bring on server lag anymore. you can change drone interfacing back to + 1 drone per squadran and the drone boat bonus back to +1 drone per level. will be a huge boost to the game visually. fighter wise though they only can be deployed in a max group of 5 (there not drones so they are not effected by drone interfacing or ship bonus) and occupy the only squadran the ship can control so if it has 5 fighters it can't launch its own drones)
so in concluesion go recode drones with something like I listed. it will save a ton of lag which is really needed, don't try quick fixes which make this game more tedius than it already is. also the only thing you need to fix lowsec moms is introduce some sort of way to lock them down in lowsec, because it isn't there fighter blob that makes them powerful there it is the ew invulnerablity and there ablity to sit on a gate with officer smartbombs killing **** without and worry.
|
Klasper
x13
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:00:00 -
[322]
Well, havn't read the last 12 pages, so my oppinion might have been shared earlier:
If you do this change it will seriously lower the capability of a sudden-strike...
What I mean is that carriers jumping into a fight are practically useless as an offensive weapon for at least 2 minutes, if there's no lag, no gang problems etc, which will only be the circumstances in small fights where 2 minutes are a long time.
This will prove severly favorable for any defending force, which from my point of view and throw the fight even more off balance than the newly deployed anti-jump arrays and all the other sovereignety bonuses a defender might have.
This change will also render a solo capital useless, and could actually be an easy target for just 5 battleships with enough neutralizers, since the amount of the capital will now be too inferior to break any tanking.
Just think of a mothership being bumped by 10 battleships while the 5 fighters swirls harmlessly around... And no, I'm not in favour of a solo pwn-mobile, but they aren't, I helped prove that (had to fit that in )
The only fact I see in favour of this change is when a pack of motherships are together, being able to fire an ECM Burst every 10 seconds, rendering any enemies useless, while hammering away with 100 fighters, but I still think my first argument outweighs the latter.
//Klasper - x13 |
Aeon Yakati
Caldari Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:02:00 -
[323]
Edited by: Aeon Yakati on 21/10/2007 15:04:09
Originally by: CCP Zulupark This means you will NOT be able to launch 20 fighters from a mothership and send them all to incinerate a battleship in .2 seconds.
I honestly wonder, has CCP Zulupark ever set foot in a mothership?
20 seconds to lock target 10 seconds for fighters to reach target 10 seconds for fighters to settle down from mwd orbit 60+ seconds to destroy battleship. Minutes if it's properly tanked. 100+ seconds total
Claiming a 30 billion mothership to be overpowered in comparison to a 0.1 billion battleship is one thing. But basing this on exaggeration (I rather hope it is) that's not even remotely close is beyond any comprehension.
If there's one blog of all blogs I've seen since beta to deserve a Razzie, it's gonna be this one.
FYI I do not fly a MS.
|
Kyoko Sakoda
Caldari Omerta Syndicate Exuro Mortis
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:03:00 -
[324]
Edited by: Kyoko Sakoda on 21/10/2007 15:04:01
It's pretty simple:
If you cap the fighter assignments, don't cap traditional drones. I should be able to put 10 heavy support drones on a friendly, otherwise I might as well use a Dominix or something for support.
|
Lysteria
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:03:00 -
[325]
CCP im sure this guy is just great at getting you a new cup of coffe when you are running low. So please keep him doing that, so he wont ruin a great game.
|
MOS DEF
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:03:00 -
[326]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
Originally by: pershphanie
Originally by: CCP Zulupark 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?
Motherships do more damage than a carrier.
Seriously dude. Witness protection program. Think about it.
If the reason for flying a mothership over a carrier is just that it does more damage, what's the change? It will still do more damage if it delegates the extra fighters it has over carriers?
Seriously. Take this as a free and good advice. Play your own game again. I know you gyus are busy with comming up wich such brilliant and well thought through changes as the one you just slapped us in the face with but you should give it a try. Maybe , just maybe you'll get the slightest clue about the game you are actually rying to ruin, err i mean develop.
|
MastaRob
Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:16:00 -
[327]
"But seriously, the reason we want to implement something like this is that we feel that capital ships are being used way too much as better-than-battleships-at-killing-stuff ships"
Yup, thats why they cost 800+mil + fittings. Thats why they SHOULD need at multiple battleships to take them down, and have significant firepower which they can weild on their own. Whats the problem? I thought you wanted to see them used more on the front lines anyway? This will completely discourage that even futher.
"when we in fact think that they should be used more as the-ships-that-keep-other-ships-alive-and-provide-them-with-additional-firepower ships."
Basically you are saying people should spend 2 bil for skills and ship (at least) to end up with a support ship?? No thanks, they should be powerful on their own, thats kinda the reason most people train for them. I just bought the carrier skill, been training up for months. If I had known all this before, seriously, I would have spent the isk and SP elsewhere.
Since carriers have been brought out they have been nerfed incessantly. Enough already!!
|
Ishina Fel
Caldari Synergy. Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:16:00 -
[328]
Zulupark, I'm sorry, but this is a bad idea.
I know what you're trying to do. Nowadays, fleet fights get less and less fun because all that happens is two parties dropping their blobs of capitals on each other. It bypasses gatecamps, it bypasses travel time, and frankly, it owns. Now what you are trying to do about it is changing the amount of ownage.
The problem with that is, the other two factors are still major factors. To make people give up the convenience of just being able to jump in from several systems away at a point they designate, at a time they designate, without having to go through gates, you'd have to take away a LOT of the ownage factor. So much, in fact, that it threatens the role of carriers altogether.
The change you are proposing right now, by the way, is not enough, if the above was what you intended. If we assume a mixed blob of carriers and dreads being dropped on the target, then the carriers assign fighters to the dreads, and everything is as before - with the difference that you now bring a few more dreads. The one major difference there will be is that carriers NOT used in a capital blob will be much easier prey than they are already.
Another point: CCP has been fighting hard to get carriers out on the frontlines, away from the POSes where they were sitting safely and assigning their fighters to everyone and their granny's alt's Ibis. You are now proposing to shift the focus of fighter deployment from carrier self-use much further towards assignment. This will, once again, give a major incentive to use the carrier at the POS, safely away from all combat, since the carrier itself has become just about unable to fight for themselves.
I think it is a good, but futile idea to try and bring capital ships a bit closer to other ships in terms of game mechanics. As we see here, they are extremely hard to balance because they operate by completely different mechanics (in terms of travel, in terms of cost, in terms of how their modules work, in terms of siege and triage modes and so on). It's as if you are trying to make a bicycle march in step with a group of soldiers.
Summary: Shifting carriers towards a primary fighter assignment role will -make carriers hide at POSes again -not change much at all about capital fleet blobs, with the exception of more dreads and less carriers being used -not change the fact that triage mode is still described as "press this button to sacrifice your 1 billion worth ship and its 1 billion worth fittings to make some of your friend's 100 million worth ships live a few minutes longer"
Consructive: I believe that siege modes in general are a very clumsy tool. If dreadnoughts were not forced to enter siege mode, they could be used outside of POS sieges and capital blobs, and would leave the player in control of their own ship more. If carriers were not forced to enter triage mode, they would be readily used for logistics, instead of trying to be solopwnmobiles because doing logistics is an automatic ship loss. Of all ships, the Rorqual's industrial core mode makes still the most sense, because it is an out of combat application, and is tied to its assembly lines, which cannot be modified by fitting.
However, all other siege mode roles could much more elegantly be solved by ship fitting and bonuses. Let dreadnoughts fit 8 weapons instead of 3 - it'll look cooler too! Give carriers a direct logistics role bonus. That will make people understand from the moment they buy their ship what it is meant to be used for. The current carrier says "I have x-hundred dangerous fighters! But if you want, read the small print about where to read about where to go to read about a sometimes possible logistics use." Of course few people will buy and fit them for a logistics role.
Just get rid of siege modes, and remodel the affected ships to work similarly as they do now, or are intended. It'll make them much closer to normal ships in terms of game mechanics too.
Buff room for large link addresses in sigs plz :( |
Joe Widowmaker
A Black Knight Corp FREGE Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:16:00 -
[329]
How about fix the lag? Then maybe carriers wont be so overpowered?
ABKC is now recruiting, go to http://abkc.evewebspace.com/join for more information |
Orangir
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:17:00 -
[330]
Yeah this change is pretty stupid and you completely missed the point.
Don't nerf carriers or motherships, fix the lag they create.
|
|
grim reaper05
Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:17:00 -
[331]
well if that plan goes true then i want to get the ability to assign my skill points i invested into carrier stuff to something else. And get the isk back from the skillbooks i have bought for them. Cause i dont wanna fly the carrier if i can only use 5 fighters/drones myself....rather buy a dominix then and stick with drones.
|
Salia Deluri
Cirrius Technologies O X I D E
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:18:00 -
[332]
This idea rates up there with using a rorqual in a belt.
If you are going to do this then increase the amount of fighters that can be assigned. Increase the strength of carrier/mothership shields, armor, and give them better than logisitic ship type repping bonuses. They are suppose to be capital versions of logisitic ships aren't they? And give back the immunity to ECM. Last I have to agree with the above. Have any of you played without god mode latley?
My other concern is th emessage your sending when you do these things. "Think long and hard about what you train years for because it will most likley be nerfed to hell when you can finally fly it"
Code of Deluri Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I cannot accept, and the wisdom to hide the bodies of those people I had to kill today. |
Elo span
Best Path Inc. Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:19:00 -
[333]
Originally by: Lysteria CCP im sure this guy is just great at getting you a new cup of coffe when you are running low. So please keep him doing that, so he wont ruin a great game.
Truth
|
princess katie
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:19:00 -
[334]
your to funny
you said Quote: so please, post constructively
and you think that your post was contructive?
what I think is constructive is to put your efforts into the lag and down time we seem to be getting. Rather than altering something that has already been created . Sounds like an excuse for a wage packet to me.
|
Capt MalcolmReynolds
Eth3real Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:20:00 -
[335]
Want more logistics?
More high slots for remote reps.
Also, fielding 15 armor/shield drones is a logistical thing to do. - Capt
|
Kilostream
Caldari Roving Guns Inc. RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:20:00 -
[336]
Edited by: Kilostream on 21/10/2007 15:23:56 I am with the Nay's
Everybody that flies them right now makes a huge sacrifice in skill training time, a huge investment in isk, and risks it all to fly it in low sec and 0.0
Crippling the carriers major offensive capability in the event of no handy gangmates will make carriers pointless - you cannot have somebody with you 100% of the time, and people will either not use carriers anymore, or be forced to triple-account just to get all their fighters properly deployed.
Carriers are already hard to train for, hard to build, hard to fly, and hard to lose - people who make the commitment of many many months of training to use them should be rewarded with a decent boat at the end of it, not a lame duck.
Keep fighter/drone deployment on carriers/MS as it is
|
TraxNet
Evolution Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:20:00 -
[337]
Originally by: Pallidum Treponema
Quote: Awww man you can't let me run dry. But seriously, the reason we want to implement something like this is that we feel that capital ships are being used way too much as better-than-battleships-at-killing-stuff ships, when we in fact think that they should be used more as the-ships-that-keep-other-ships-alive-and-provide-them-with-additional-firepower ships. Did that make sense? Probably not, but anyway, we hope you get the gist the direction we want to move them in and the way we see that happening.
Destroyers are bigger and require more skills than frigates. They are better than frigates at killing stuff. Cruisers are bigger and require more skills than destroyers. They are better than destroyers at killing stuff. Battlecruisers are bigger and require more skills than cruisers. They are better than cruisers at killing stuff. Battleships are bigger and require more skills than battlecruisers. They are better than battlecruisers at killing stuff.
Does this make sense? Let's keep going.
Carriers are bigger and require more skills than battleships. They are better than battleships at killing stuff.
Was there anything confusing about this? Carriers are all about force projection. They darn well SHOULD be better at killing stuff than battleships, considering their price and size.
Now, I can see a potential problem if "carriers are being used instead of battleships" on the frontlines. I agree that carriers have been used more agressively in the past few months. This is partially because more people have the ability to fly carriers than ever, but also as a result of new game mechanics. Carriers are needed for more tasks now than ever before. This has led to even more people training for carriers.
Being a member of an alliance that is known for our agressive use of capitals, and also being a pilot of a carrier, I will happily admit that we've used carriers successfully during both offensive and defensive operations. However, each time we've deployed carriers in large numbers, we've had a specific reason for using them. The firepower of the carriers have obviously been welcome but has never been the main reason. In many cases, had we not needed carriers, for instance for boosting shields of a POS, battleships would have been preferable due to their far higher tactical flexibility, not to mention lower cost.
Carriers won't take the role of battleships as the main combatant in fleets, if that's what you're worried about. There have been occasions where I've been in capital gangs that have been bigger than the hostile battleship numbers. During many of those occasions, we have decided NOT to engage, for the simple reason that capitals are far more expensive than battleships. Losing even two or three carriers would have been the equivalent of half the enemy battleship fleet, not to mention the amount of fighters that would be sniped or smartbombed away.
If it's a lag issue, fine, fix the lag. If it's a gameplay issue, don't worry. People will find a way to deal with the "carrier blobs". I've already seen bomber pilots killing dozens of fighters in one go, or smartbomb suicide ships taking out huge chunks of the carrier's firepower. Trust people to find counters on their own. Heck, half the fun of eve is figuring out tactics to counter the enemy's tactics.
Bottom line is, carriers are fine. Don't change them.
All the above plus, if ccp's hidden worry is not the carriers being unbalanced as they say in that blog but the lag, delegating fighters everywhere wont help lag anyways. You will see lot of fighters in gate camps, even more than now (tbh I would delegate the fighters to a battleship if I can't find a faster ship in gang, at least he will have more protection from smaller ships). Start fixing the drone interface and the several bugs with drones before even thinking on nerfing carrier ships.
|
Coolgamer
Minmatar Res Publica R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:21:00 -
[338]
Originally by: DRDNOUGHT Guys.... we are talking about carriers here yes ? 10 times the price of a typical battleship.... months more of skill training.... the whole point of a carrier is its superior fighter and drone carrying power as well as its support capabilities. If it is to be stepped down to just a support vessel, I as well as many others Im sure, are going to have to rethink its value when compared with the training time required as well as the large ISK investment. A carrier is a tactical vessel first and a support vessel second and we cant go nerfing It because it is successful at what it was designed to do. If We need to change the balance then we need to do the same as we would do in the real world when faced with a superior weapon.....invent something that can disable it easier.......
exactly and actually THERE IS something that diseable a carrier easier it is dampeners, oh maybe you dont know that item dear Dev ^^ but hell yea a dampener like on any other hip can make a carrier useless at all.
I havent trained a year on ONLY cap skills on 2 accounts to see this silly idea prevailing, this will end my fun with supercaps and game. simple. what you propose simply make the fighter skill itself useless, right?
|
Inturist
Nuclear Reactor Inc INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:22:00 -
[339]
Originally by: oDDiTy V2 By the way, I hope CCP are prepared to refund the game time and skill training points of every carrier and mothership pilot in the game if this change takes even another step forward.
QFT --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Cadela Fria
Amarr Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:22:00 -
[340]
Edited by: Cadela Fria on 21/10/2007 15:27:23 You know, I have to re-iterate my feelings on this, because I've spent SO long training for carriers and now going towards a mothership.
This whole idea is inconcievable, I mean for crying out loud they are CAPITAL SHIPS...they're SUPPOSED to be like they are now - In fact if anything they should be boosted!
Consider the following factors:
1. They take years of training and planning to fly 2. They take forever to build 3. They cost a LOT of money, time and effort 4. They are the PINNACLE of fleet warfare 5. What about lvl 5 missions? Originally advertised to be run in large gangs or a few carriers...strike out the carrier part now, as they won't be able to do this, EVER AGAIN, with this idea.
WHY should capitals and supercapitals be balanced to match that of a battleship?? I mean I'm sure you mean well and all, but I beg you, don't do this. With this idea in mind we might aswell balance everything down to a frigate level..since a mothership won't be much difference then say a dominix, then the next step is Frigate -> battleships..NERF!
Why should motherships not cause havoc at their own accord?? Look at the time, effort and isk it even takes to MAKE one in the first place! I mean no disrespect to our new man in Game Design, and I am NOT attacking you Sir, I'm attacking your idea, because it is simply an outrage, I'm sorry :(
Please put the balancing stick away, because some things are MEANT to be more powerful, they are meant to cause that "OMG A <insert shipname here>!! RUN!!" reaction..balancing is what ruined a LOT of great games that had potential (IE: SWG, Planetside etc etc).
If you introduce a perfectly balance world in which all are equal or not in any state of intimidation, or for that matter, in power, then the whole world will lose it's flavor. It's the differences and sometimes, rough around the edges that make things exciting and cause us to think for ourselves on how we deal with things.
I may not carry a whole lot of weight with anyone, much less anyone in CCP, but think about this for a moment. When was the last time you saw a pilgrim? I know a Curse can compensat by using missiles, speed and a few neuts. However since the Nosferatu nerf, a pilgrim isn't worth anything anymore - All because of "balancing", and it made a LOT of people angry, myself included..because I might aswell throw that ship away now.
Same thing with my carrier, no point...If this idea is put into practice, there would be no use for my carrier, much less use once the T2 Freighter variant comes into play. I have no idea where some people get their idea of "fleets drop their blobs of capitals on each other all the time", because thats not true at all! Support fleet battles still happen, quite vigorously at that! So I implore you, nay, I beg you, DO - NOT use this idea.
|
|
Darpz
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:23:00 -
[341]
Edited by: Darpz on 21/10/2007 15:23:46
Originally by: FowlPlayChiken so, goonfleets constant complaining about carriers and fighters has finally done its work.
don't start trying to blaim sides in this, I'm pretty sure both sides agree this change is dumb, the only people praising it have have spent any or enough time in a carrier to know how stupid it is.
I like the bigger fighter idea as a less programing intensive way to reduce lag. make them a fighter version of sentry drones called escorts. there would be 2 types of escorts, standard ones that a carrier can launch and heavy ones that a mom can launch. they would have 2x and 4x the bandwidth useage of fighters and would be caped at 5 per ship. there dps and hp would be 2x that of fighters for the normal ones and 4x for the heavy escorts. They would be medium range (30-50k optimals). They would have some move ment ability (200 meters persec for escorts and 100 for heavy escorts)
|
Imperius Blackheart
Caldari Trinity Nova KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:23:00 -
[342]
I simply cannot put into words how much of a bad idea I think this is, this is possibly the worst dev blog suggestion ever.
I'm sorry but carriers are CARRIERS, not field hospitals, they are the aircraft carriers of space, not an ambulance.
I'd really like to know if the suggestion is an anti lag suggestion or something else?
The only capitals I have seen deployed witout sufficent support fleet have died, they are easy enough to kill (with the possible exception of moms in lowsec) and cannot win wars on their own. But they are great ships that at the moment are something to aim for, be inspired by and want to fly. What your suggesting would relegate them to somewhere below battleship in desirability.
When you consider the isk spent and time spent on skills to field them effectively is that really what you want?
To make your end game, super ships the things that are meant to stike fear and awe into their enemys fleets reduced to nothing?
Seriously, I cannot even express what a bad idea this is. http://www.myspace.com/cakeisalie
|
Laboratus
Gallente BGG League of Abnormal Gentlemen
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:23:00 -
[343]
1. Do you like this idea (that is the more-support-oriented idea)?
The idea in itself is interesting. This will significantly increase the need for smaller ships that do not have the ability to fit and fly 5 drones in their own drone bay. Frigates, assault ships, and interceptors. It will also reduce the number of empire mommies, and general solo station hugging. All of this good. Capital ship as a term usually refers to the mission ships in a fleet. The core units that have support. In eve this is true for dreads on pos ops, freighters for hauling, and titans for jump bridge logistics. With carriers it means a remote rep circle... I'm not too keen on how capitals have been done, and as such I like to see fresh ideas...
2. If so, do you like the approach we're thinking about (fighter deployment limits)?
I like in this idea, the fact that ships that have no/small dronebays themselves become more usefull as the need to delegate fighters brings the need for fast locking ships. Ships that can deploy a full set of their own drones lose quite a bit, if they can't use them. So this is good for ships that rely on turrets or missiles for damage. Such as amarr and caldari ships. The logical problem that arises is the fact that not too many people in gangs fly such ships...
___ P.S. Post with your main. Mind control and tin hats |
000Hunter000
Gallente Magners Marauders
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:24:00 -
[344]
Originally by: FowlPlayChiken so, goonfleets constant complaining about carriers and fighters has finally done its work.
I'm pretty sure this does not count for all of them, i've talked to a few goons and from what i hear they don't like this change one bit either. Offcourse i have no idea what the official pov from the goons will be, mebbe someone should ask them and they can post it here?
but anyways ccp, if BoB doesn't like it (which seems apparent now) and the goons don't like it (not confirmed), and apparently most of the general public don't like it, can we have this silly idea sent to the garbage bin please? and mebbe send this devwannabee back to his old job where he prolly will be able to do more good anyways.
impo: quality control < nerfing stuff CCP, let us pay the online shop with Direct Debit!!! Magners is now recruiting, evemail me or Dagazbo ingame.
|
violator2k5
Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:25:00 -
[345]
i would say that this blog is a surprise but i'd be lying.
nerfed titan - check increasing blob warefare - check nerfing carriers / moms fighters - in progress / TBD
if these changes do go live then you'll have to sort out a few things to actually give them the actual support role that you want them to have.
1)decreasing the mineral requirments of those fighters to make them more cost effective. 2) increasing the drone bays on the carriers / moms...... giving the moms a bigger drone bay then the carriers so that they are defined and actually are worth paying that bit extra for them. 3) change the way they are bounced so that the only ships you can actually bump a ship of that size with dependant on the mass "size of the ship" of the one thats trying to bump it. 4) This ones the biggy.... Fighter lag.... the drone nerf in the past that happened was supposed to fix this issue but then carriers with fighters was released and the lag was even worse then it was back then. 5) fix the bump desycn. 6)rethink the carrier / mom bonus's towards fighters 7) as already mentioned decreasing the lock time to actually remote rep your fellow pilots
I am in no way happy about the changes you are bloging about even if i dont have a char who can fly one yet, from the tests that i did on armageddon day i was pretty happy with what i found of them and yes your right it can strip a BS down and kill it pretty fast, even cmd ships go down like a sack of potatoes just as fast too.
any decent pvp char already knows if you get fighters on you in full scale combat you dont sit around you get your butt moving until that carrier is other out of comission or the fighters are distroyed or if the carrier pilot recalls its fighters. with the lag they produce its pretty hard to do that these days.
so if you really wanted to fix them so that others were not moaning about them so much and instead rather happy with them on the field then you would of sorted fighter lag out a long time ago.... no that does not mean nerfing them so they can only deploy so many fighters from their own ship for own use but rather your actual game code for the fighters themselves. ---------------------------- BOB 4 LIFE NOT JUST 4 A DAY ----------------------------
|
Kaakao
Insidious Existence Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:26:00 -
[346]
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)?
More-support-oriented idea doesn't sound bad. I might eaven like it, depending how its done. Im just about to finish my pre-reqs for a Chimera. What Im looking to do with it is small gang support. Which in my opinion is keeping my friends alive and delivering additional damage with my fighter drones.
Quote: 2. If so, do you like the approach we're thinking about (fighter deployment limits)?
Fighter deployment limits, no thanks. I want to be able to kill a BS solo (Im pretty sure a deacently tanked bs can tank 5 fighters) if needed. Carrier can be pretty easily tackled if left alone and it doesnt take too many bs's to ***** its tank.
Also fighters cost a lot of ISK so I rather control em myself than let my friends do it. They have their own drones to take care of and in many cases light / medium scout drones can be better than fighters (small targets).
Quote: 3. If you liked the idea but no the solution, what propositions do you have?
Boost the logistic side of the carrier, don't nerf the defence (=fighters).
Quote: 4. If you don't like the idea at all, why not?
I like the idea, but not the solution you gave for it. (read above)
---- wtb signature |
Vegeta
Minmatar Omniscient Order Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:26:00 -
[347]
Edited by: Vegeta on 21/10/2007 15:32:42
Absolute failure of a solution.
Bombs With bombs, you attempted to create an anti-blob tool. You did not succeed and nobody uses bombs... get back to work.
Insurance Motherships are fine as they are. I may be slightly biased because I fly one, but the recent nerfs which hit titans the hardest were not easy on mom pilots either. Notice the recent trends in mothership deaths.
Your problem is not with the usability of the ships, but the lack of penalty when they die. Notice how motherships and titans have slowly been withdrawn from direct 0.0 conflicts after the bubble changes (took some people longer to figure out than others). This is because the penalty for losing one is high.
Remove insurance from ships that die in 0.0. Remove insurance from ships that die while criminally flagged. Make capital ship losses matter and people won't use them so carelessly. I doubt you realize on how many levels this is beneficial for the game.
Insurance is the number one reason for inflation and by far Eve's biggest ISK well. Capital ships are not the problem here, insurance is.
Local Removing local will create fear of the unknown and people will be less confident to bring out their big ships. Show only those in (0.0) local who have recently spoken. This will also help your cloaking/logging NPCer problem.
Capital Lag Hordes of motherships and carriers, each with 10-20 fighters out, creates massive lag. Solve this using the same method you originally used for drones. Quality over quantity. Make fighters tougher and let us have less of them. Compensate by giving an overall increase in DPS and HP (many small > few big).
|
Dal'thiron
Gallente Best Path Inc. Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:26:00 -
[348]
Horrific idea.
|
James CX
Dark Destiny Inc. TALIONIS ALLIANCE
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:27:00 -
[349]
Ive been in eve for 3 years and this is the worst idea ive ever seen. And just for this you should be banned of the dev team cause you suck!
|
Paulette
Raddick Explorations Executive Outcomes
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:27:00 -
[350]
Originally by: grim reaper05 well if that plan goes true then i want to get the ability to assign my skill points i invested into carrier stuff to something else. And get the isk back from the skillbooks i have bought for them. Cause i dont wanna fly the carrier if i can only use 5 fighters/drones myself....rather buy a dominix then and stick with drones.
Makes an interesting point. You change the way those ships are getting handled, that much, you need to offer that possibility to each and every pilot that even started to train towards the carriers.
You change it to that, I don't want my alt to be training for that anymore, I want to be reimbursed for the books.
seriously, its natural that a mom owns a BS... Thats the way it works... as previously stated noobship < frigate < destroyer < cruiser < battle cruiser < BS < carrier < mothership.
5 fighters makes it BS > carrier the carrier will not even be able to break the target's tank...
|
|
Cuisinar
Gallente The Circle STYX.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:27:00 -
[351]
Let's all quit game.
It's what this change is asking imo
|
Ztrain
Evolution Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:27:00 -
[352]
Originally by: XY55XTY Sorry CCP, send this guy back to his old department!
There is only so much nerfing a game can take and this protential nerf takes the BLEEP!
No please don't have you played the game recently? He didn't do anything in the Quality Assurance department ether. Most game developers would be embarrassed to produce a game with as poor performance and bugs as EVE currently has.
If you want to solve the problem you need to remove the current development staff. It is proven at this point they are incompetent to the point that most countries companies would have replaced them with staff that had qualifications. I heard a funny defense. One guy was trying to defend the CCP staff the other day said but their just a bunch of database programmers that decided to make games. Well if they were good at programming databases then why is 9 out of 10 unexpected DTs blamed on database issues if their so skilled in that specialty?
No the only way your going to fix the game is to fix the company that is currently producing it at this point.
Z CCP (Producers of Slide Show Online) takin the fun out of EVE, one patch at a time. |
SolarKnight
Gallente ORIGIN SYSTEMS Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:28:00 -
[353]
Edited by: SolarKnight on 21/10/2007 15:28:07 If this goes through, the idea of a logistics carrier, will be obsolete, everyone will train carrier 5 (if they still want to fly carriers), train advanced interfacing 5, fill their highs with DCUs, and delegate 15 fighters to camps, which means less direct fighting, more gate camps that crash nodes, and more forum whining The Light in the Darkness
My Corp, My family http://Origin.zapto.org
My Alliance http://forums.atlas-alliance.com/index.php |
Druadan
Gallente Aristotle Enterprises Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:28:00 -
[354]
Edited by: Druadan on 21/10/2007 15:28:46 1. Do you like this idea (that is the more-support-oriented idea)? No. Carriers ARE support. CCP's whole impression of carriers is that they don't carry ****, they come in with lolreps, get dampened, and become useless for the whole battle. Fighters are the only thing we have that make deploying them to the frontline useful.
2. If so, do you like the approach we're thinking about (fighter deployment limits)? N/A
3. If you liked the idea but no the solution, what propositions do you have? N/A
4. If you don't like the idea at all, why not? As I said in #1, there is no reason to nerf carriers and motherships, and anyone who takes part in 0.0 warfare can tell you this. The only people ****ed at carriers/moms are people getting popped by smartbombing capitals in Rancer, and this is not a solution to that. You're removing the only reason to put carriers on the front line, with an idea that is more ******** than the introduction of the Rorqual.
In conclusion, this is an awful change with no grounding in the actual game. If you put this change through, I want all my carrier pilot's skillpoints wiped and put into a dreadnought of my choice, in the skill distribution of my choice, along with a 360mil refund for the difference in cost between the carrier skillbook and the dread skillbook.
### I nearly finish carriers, and they nerf it. I nearly finish Amarr recons, and they make them useless. Vagabond pilots beware... I have bought Minmatar Cruiser. |
Jita TradeAlt
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:28:00 -
[355]
So basically carriers not using fighters will now have less firepower than a dominix?
Now this is a clear nerf to people like bob and mc, but this is just so silly and short sighted that even if it absolutely screws them over then i cant really support it.
|
Snakebloke
Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:29:00 -
[356]
Originally by: Coolgamer
Originally by: Mirauder
Originally by: busta nut you might aswell remove carriers from the game for all the use they will be after. 6 months of training and multiple billions of isk and i end up in a domi with a jumpdrive....
Signed signed signed signed.
and resigned
re-resigned
|
Sentinel Eeex
Caldari DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:29:00 -
[357]
Edited by: Sentinel Eeex on 21/10/2007 15:33:18 Hmm.
I could only understand this change if CCP is pre-emptively making modifications for something that is coming in a year or two - 300 people in LOCAL, 250 of them in carriers. If that was the case, I'd understand why CCP would make changes.
However, lag is the biggest problem at the moment. Fix that first, sort out other things later.
If CCP really wants to make changes to carriers/motherships, then they could consider another option.
If carrier/mothership wants to control and use 12/20/whatever drones, make them fit high-slot module(s) (call it 'Control Tower Upgrade' ;) that increases number of fighters/drones possible to control. So, carrier/MS has no CTUs - he can control 5 fighters. He has 1, can control 10. Has 3, can control 12 (well, this is a problem, but CCP will think of something, I'm sure ;)).
Basically, make carriers sacrifice their remote repping capabilities if they wish to have full control of all their fighters.
Although, it might not be worth much at the end, since we'll end up with 200 carriers on grid anyway, of which 100 will be repping and 100 will be controlling 12 fighters, so... bleh Need to fix the lag first.
EDIT: CCP, you'll see that biggest whiners are mothership pilots who are devastated because they won't be able to use 20 mining drones anymore (j/k of course, don't hate me ) |
zykerx
Lo0nEy To0nS R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:31:00 -
[358]
omg stupid change .
"MY COMMENTS IN NO WAY REFLECT MY CORP OR ALLIANCE"
|
Druadan
Gallente Aristotle Enterprises Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:31:00 -
[359]
Originally by: Sentinel Eeex Hmm.
I could only understand this change if CCP is pre-emptively making modifications for something that is coming in a year or two - 300 people in LOCAL, 250 of them in carriers. If that was the case, I'd understand why CCP would make changes.
However, lag is the biggest problem at the moment. Fix that first, sort out other things later.
If CCP really wants to make changes to carriers/motherships, then they could consider another option.
If carrier/mothership wants to control and use 12/20/whatever drones, make them fit high-slot module(s) (call it 'Control Tower Upgrade' ;) that increases number of fighters/drones possible to control. So, carrier/MS has no CTUs - he can control 5 fighters. He has 1, can control 10. Has 3, can control 12 (well, this is a problem, but CCP will think of something, I'm sure ;)).
Basically, make carriers sacrifice their remote repping capabilities if they wish to have full control of all their fighters.
Although, it might not be worth much at the end, since we'll end up with 200 carriers on grid anyway, of which 100 will be repping and 100 will be controlling 12 fighters, so... bleh Need to fix the lag first.
We have those already: Drone Control Units. With three of them, Drones V, and Carrier IV, you can support 12 fighters.
### I nearly finish carriers, and they nerf it. I nearly finish Amarr recons, and they make them useless. Vagabond pilots beware... I have bought Minmatar Cruiser. |
Coolgamer
Minmatar Res Publica R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:31:00 -
[360]
Edited by: Coolgamer on 21/10/2007 15:31:53
Originally by: Vile rat Zulupark seriously listen to us on this one. Every major alliance is in total agreement here from Bob to MC to Goonswarm.
You are tweaking something that is insignificant and unimportant to fix a problem nobody is complaining about while ignoring or glossing over a fundamental break in the mechanics that are Carrier/Ms fighter control. Nobody cares about the firepower they bring to the table, it's fine. Everybody thinks it's fine. The frigate pilot thinks it's fine and the carrier pilot thinks it's fine.
It's fine!
The problem is the lag generated and the way fighters perform in a completely lagged out environment. Put down your pad of paper where you are furiously scribbling new carrier designs and step away from your excel spreadsheet where you are plopping in more cosmetic fixes to a problem that doesn't even exist. Your sole job should be fixing the real problem and not messing around with this horse crap.
indeed, and starting fixing the drone delegation menu and in general the WHOLE drone menu in overview (excuse me but some carrier carries over 500+ drones, that's tons of folder, and lag generation in combat on client side thanks to db, fix that first !)
there were multiple good old threats about new drone system delegation in the dev forum, like having drones icons not only in overview but near the F1-F8 keys were we could give order to drones or group of drones.
you should better work on this idea rather than ruining the fun all carrier pilots have ingame.
|
|
Morning Mist
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:32:00 -
[361]
Goonswarm is very quickly closing the capital gap, why the hell would we like this change? We want lag to be fixed not making motherships worthless. And anyone thinking the Titan nerf actually did anything to promote blob warfare you have never flown in a fight with/against a Titan before.
|
Etien Aldragoran
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:33:00 -
[362]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
Originally by: pershphanie
Originally by: CCP Zulupark 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?
Motherships do more damage than a carrier.
Seriously dude. Witness protection program. Think about it.
If the reason for flying a mothership over a carrier is just that it does more damage, what's the change? It will still do more damage if it delegates the extra fighters it has over carriers?
You do realize this is the same logic as saying a 4 man gang has more firepower than a 3 man gang, right? I.E. the only reason you have more firepower is because you have more people, not because your ship is better.
Under your proposal (simplified for numbers only) if you have 2 3 man gangs 1 a MS and 2 BS, and 1 a carrier and 2 BS, the carrier is providing everything the MS is, for 1/20th the price. So you're basically saying that to field a mothership effectively you need to have more friends, whats the logic behind that exactly? In the end, you get a lot more mileage out of always bringing another carrier to a fight than fielding a mothership. And I'm pretty sure you can get a few years worth of GTC's to produce and manage another carrier alt for the price you paid for said shiny mothership. ------------------------------------------------------ I am not a nice person, never have, never will be, its my burden to deal with the consequences of my actions. |
Cyana Fox
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:34:00 -
[363]
This is a horrible idea =/
Why take their direct fighter control? You REALIZE (I hope) that makes them completely defenseless right? You realize not all cap ships can have support beckoning at their will right? WHY ON EARTH WOULD YOU WANT TO DO THIS???? They are useless as it is when they get damped, webbed, nos'd anyways.
And who's idea was carriers controlling 5 drones anyways???? For being a super cap, I'm less effective than a Myrmidon??? Ishtar??? Dominix???? I fly a Thanatos, why the hell would i want to fly a billion isk lesser ship when one that is 30million is more effective dps wise when using drones????
You are NEW to this 'balancing' team right? Stay away from CAPS! You sire are limited to Tech 1 Frigate nerfing ONLY. I'm talking punishers, condors, and rifters!!!
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!!!!!!!!!!
|
Lord Eremet
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:34:00 -
[364]
Dear CCP ZULU, I tried to find the good things with your idea and what I come up with is that I can now cancel my plans of training for a carrier.
It will save me a lot of Isk and time I was gonna use for skills and carrier and setup and instead I can go train for a Dominix. It will perform just like a carrier after your nerf, but better, and I can afford to buy and lose a dozen of them.
In fact this character will not be needed any longer with this change so I go cancel the subscription now and next go right to the character sell forum.
So CCP Zulu I tank you very much for letting me know before it happened so I didn't do it all for nothing. And before I leave a big 'lol' to all you s*ckers who now sit there with soon (almost)useless ships and skill points.
//Erem
|
FalconHawk
Amarr Shadow Rebellion
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:34:00 -
[365]
why you realy want to change these ships? they have alot of firepower, but they cost 10-30 times more than a normal battleship, so what¦s wrong with them?
will this change stop low sec pirate motherships? no why they should care about uber damage? fit 5 neuts and 5 fighters will do the job too and they are still immune to EW and move where they want.
so i don¦t see a balancing need and low sec moms won¦t be stopped by this, this is no balancing, this is a simple NERF! sure 20 fighters controlled by a mom are a bit much, but i don¦t see a need to screw the gameplay for most carrier pilots in eve.
|
Lady Azra
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:34:00 -
[366]
OK...
Someone please take away this persons nerf bat!!!!! or make sure he never gets it!!!!
Carriers are already nerfed, they are not the super uber ships, a carrier can not take on but maybe 3 or 4 ships at a time, and even if those 3 or 4 ships know what they are doing and deppending on the types they could take down the carrier..
Carriers already can not fly through space alone, unless they are looking to collect some insurance money..
I have other characters, and one of these characters flys carriers and is in an alliance and standing orders are not to mine or rat in them and DO NOT EVER FLY OUT SOLO SOMEWHERE..
We have ourselves taken down carriers with 8 man gangs, and motherships with 10 man gangs... THEY ARE ALREDY NERFED
Move along nothing to see here.
|
Dah' Khanid
Conisor Excavations Syndicate Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:34:00 -
[367]
Edited by: Dah'' Khanid on 21/10/2007 15:35:33 I'll support almost every other poster in this thread when saying that this is a bad idea. This change suggestion has clearly been made by someone who does not understand what carriers and motherships are used for in the endgame, in 0.0 warfare.
This is not the way to go, you've always said that you want to see capitals and super capitals more on the frontline, hence the titan change for instance. Why bother making a ship change that will only render it useful when sitting at a POS? And 1,5-30bil ships in this case...
We all know that lag is the REAL concern here, not carriers being "super weapons" - every single poster in this thread knows that carriers can't be used effectively for solo work and that even the dumbest squad of 5 people can take down a well fitted carrier.
So do you think we are fools? We all know how 0.0 warfare is and what the real change should be like, in my opinion you're only trying to make the fighter control, the carriers' only real defence, so damn hard to use in combat since assigning takes time and effort and won't work when you jump in a fleet on top of another capital fleet and start the battle right away. You're trying to make fighter control so difficult and boring and time consuming that the amount of fighters in space and in large battles will be reduced overall - therefore a reduction in lag. BUT this is not the way to go at all, you're making the game boring for the thousands of players that are using their carriers and motherships in combat and want to be on the front and be to USE, not just sitting ducks in a support ship that can't even support still because of the only real problem: lag.
So stop trying to fix problems that aren't there, carriers are fine as they are, find another way to reduce lag, make fighters little dots in space if you want to and remove their animation and all - just don't create an expensive POS hugging ship and make the game boring for people who play this game for fun and want to fly ships that they've trained hard for and earned much money to be able to buy and fly.
|
Buckeroo Bonzai
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:35:00 -
[368]
As a 0.0 carrier pilot I think this is just stupid. 5 drones to protect your self is just not going to hack it. Worst idea ever (no offence).
|
Molly Neuro
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:36:00 -
[369]
A lot of people have put the case for not implementing this, many of them much more eloquently and effectively than I can. A lot of the MC posts have been very interesting, and if you want want to hear from people with experience of frontlining capitals you won't do much better.
The only interesting thing this proposed change has going for it - is whether, in the face of almost universal derision, you'll continue to implement it.
I've seen many dev posts saying that they listen to what players are saying - I think we'll find out how true that is very soon.
|
Rusty PwnStar
Rampage Eternal Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:37:00 -
[370]
It seems that whenever I get close to flying/using something in eve it gets nerfed.
This is the worst change, that's ever hit a dev blog. Fix the problem..... the problem is lag. I've never heard anyone say Carriers or MS are overpowered, except MS in low sec.
Rather a daft idea tbh.
Regards Rusty |
|
Neo Triton
Amarr Unamed Mofos
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:38:00 -
[371]
if it aint broke, dont try and fix it!
nt
|
Sentinel Eeex
Caldari DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:38:00 -
[372]
Originally by: Druadan
We have those already: Drone Control Units. With three of them, Drones V, and Carrier IV, you can support 12 fighters.
They give +1 for number of controlling drones/fighter, no?
CCP could tweak it all using their math magic, to make you use most high slots to control full number of drones.
Aw, ffs, although I'd like to find a reason for CCP doing this, it's hard.
I have never had problems with many carriers/motherships shooting me or my buddies. I only had problems with not being able to move, warp, lock or shoot for 15-20 minutes because of the lag. If there was no lag, there would be no fighters to shoot me and my buddies, so... really hard to understand why CCP wants to make this change. |
Nahia Senne
Black Eclipse Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:38:00 -
[373]
I'm not sure if CCP play this game any more. This will just delegate carriers to 24/7 POS sitting duty.
|
Diablique
The Arrow Project
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:40:00 -
[374]
Edited by: Diablique on 21/10/2007 15:40:55 there is no way to reasign drones after the first 5 mins of comabt.....once the controlers die or warp out, totaly pointless
not to mention, the firepower of a carrier is already less than most battleships..... a better change would be to halve the number of drones deployed and double thier HP and damage....
you cannot assign fighters to a ship that already has drones out.... everyone puts thier own drones out in fleet combat.. improved drone interface or not.. once you spend an hour assigning drones, and battle engages, everyone without fighters deploys thier own drones... then when the controlers die, you cannot reasign even if there wasnt lag or a bad interface
its stupid, they wanna nerf the firpower of a billion isk ship that already has less firepower of a battleship, at its firepoer can be directly targeted and destroyed..... (shoot the damn fighters)
|
Scavok
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:42:00 -
[375]
Edited by: Scavok on 21/10/2007 15:42:49
Originally by: FowlPlayChiken so, goonfleets constant complaining about carriers and fighters has finally done its work.
We have nearly as many motherships and I'd imagine quite a few more carriers than MC does at this point. The only difference is that as an alliance, we don't have all our eggs in one basket. That doesn't take away from the fact that a very large portion of our older members who invested large amounts of their own isk and went through the capital grind are getting ****** just as hard as your members.
Regardless, if you look at the thread where we voiced our complaints it was almost entirely about problems with lag and how unbalanced auto-aggression is under heavy lag conditions. Many even explicitly said that carriers don't need a nerf.
|
christianeh
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:43:00 -
[376]
hmm i see the nerf good, so a few more thinks to nerf also:
1) why we have 8 highslots 1 should be enought 2) the capital weapons on the dread are to powerfull, nerf it to tech I guns or better civilian guns 3) the skill time to a BS are to short, make a rank 20 skill for the BS 4) why the ships have 3 parts of items (imean shield, amorr and struk) nerf it struk whit 0% resi are enought
so what you think CCP to this nerfs?
and YES i fly a carrier, i skill 1 char over one year only for carrier, but i see it positive when the carrier nerf comes i save the money for 4 chars
|
Alexander Knott
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:44:00 -
[377]
I always thought you got the Triage Mode backwards. Or at least that it was worth considering changing it so that you need to be in Triage to deploy fighters (or maybe to deploy more than 5 fighters). That way, if you want to fighter blob, you have to commit your capitals.
----- "I like to loot, especially going to the can of the battleship, sometimes there is a surprise inside, sometimes there is only carp..." |
Lazuran
Gallente Time And ISK Sink Corporation
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:44:00 -
[378]
Originally by: Nahia Senne I'm not sure if CCP play this game any more. This will just delegate carriers to 24/7 POS sitting duty.
They are just completely unable to fix the lag without game nerfs such as these. At least they could admit it openly, some of us have been in the game for 4+ years and feel like they could be treated with more respect.
CCP, there's just 1 "constructive" thing to say in this thread: focus on fixing the lag, change the gameplay later when the game is actually playable in typical combat situations.
isn't it funny how some people advocate both GTC<=>ISK trades and EVE being superior due to its cruelty and costly losses, when they use the former to circumvent the latter?
|
Coolgamer
Minmatar Res Publica R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:45:00 -
[379]
Originally by: Molly Neuro A lot of people have put the case for not implementing this, many of them much more eloquently and effectively than I can. A lot of the MC posts have been very interesting, and if you want want to hear from people with experience of frontlining capitals you won't do much better.
The only interesting thing this proposed change has going for it - is whether, in the face of almost universal derision, you'll continue to implement it.
I've seen many dev posts saying that they listen to what players are saying - I think we'll find out how true that is very soon.
lol yea we'll find out
/me ready to click on unscubscribe button * 3 accouts
|
|
CCP Abathur
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:45:00 -
[380]
Ladies and Gentlemen, please rest assured that the Dev team is paying attention to this thread. Don't take it all out on Zulu; he was just the messenger. As was stated in the original blog this is an idea and we thank you all for your constructive input. Please feel free to continue voicing what your concerns are and we will do our best to address them.
"Tux did it!" |
|
|
Super Twinkey69
D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:46:00 -
[381]
lol make billions of isk more useless plz!
man poor aeon-now its ugly and worthless
hurray!!111!1! |
Snakebloke
Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:48:00 -
[382]
im honestly trying not to be mean but its hair brained. i have spent 6 months training for a chimera and need a further 3 to get into one. after that i wanted to train further for a "bigger and better carrier" (wink wink ) and now you want to basically make all that obsolete training. i point blank refuse to pay 40,000,000,000 isk for a mom thats no better than 2 domis stuck together. or one for that matter.
Please just concentrate on getting t2 fritters/bs out, sort the new graphics engine and eliminate lag and exploits.
and for those who complain about gate camping in carriers...use your brain, get some nos ships and bs and go kill them. its not hard at all. carriers are massively powerful for a reason, but they have their weaknesses so stop spamming the forums with whining and go work out some tactics. also STOP COMING INTO 0.0 ON YOUR OWN! jees, come on! there are advanced, skille dalliances controlling basically all 0.0 space so DONT go in there by yourself. same goes for low sec.
|
Armus Jenson
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:48:00 -
[383]
Edited by: Armus Jenson on 21/10/2007 15:52:25 Anyone that believes you can solo in a carrier is sorely mistaken.
Anyone that thinks Carriers dont suffer the SAME lag that smaller ships is , sorely mistaken.
I lost a carrier before to severe lag and getting 1 frame of movement every 10 seconds and being able to activate 1 mod every 20-30.
And I asure you with only 5 fighters available to me , it would be completely defenseless.
So if LAG is the real problem, so be it, we all suffer from its effects.
But as the 16 pages of this thread already show, you have a large percentage of people that will not tollerate this change, and I know alot of people that are saying they will drop their accounts if it goes through.
I hope that CCP Wrangler actually reads these replies or at least skims them before making one of the worst marketing mistakes ever.
And on a final note, I refuse to let a 1.5billion isk shipbecome defensless and all the months of skill training to become worthless, to Satisfy some noob whining in his first t1 fitted battleship worth 150million isk.
|
Sacrosanctus
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:49:00 -
[384]
Originally by: Alias11 I think this is a pretty bad change but that doesn't make the MC whining any less hilarious
|
Windsoord Maelstrom
Evolution Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:49:00 -
[385]
carrier 800m fittings 100-200m Fighters 9-20x15m Skills 600m Training Time 1 year
Firepower equal to a Dominix
Priceless
|
Karbowiak
Exanimo Inc Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:49:00 -
[386]
Originally by: CCP Abathur Ladies and Gentlemen, please rest assured that the Dev team is paying attention to this thread. Don't take it all out on Zulu; he was just the messenger. As was stated in the original blog this is an idea and we thank you all for your constructive input. Please feel free to continue voicing what your concerns are and we will do our best to address them.
Adress what? we have gotten 3 responces sofar from you people (OH NO HE DIDNT!!!)
|
Lucre
STK Scientific M. PIRE
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:49:00 -
[387]
It seems to me that ships that "keep other ships alive and help them" shouldn't cost 250 times as much as the ships they're helping... |
oDDiTy V2
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:49:00 -
[388]
Originally by: CCP Abathur Ladies and Gentlemen, please rest assured that the Dev team is paying attention to this thread. Don't take it all out on Zulu; he was just the messenger. As was stated in the original blog this is an idea and we thank you all for your constructive input. Please feel free to continue voicing what your concerns are and we will do our best to address them.
Here, let me help you out CCP Abathur.
The following is a list of ways you can address this issue: -Scrap the idea completely. -Fire the people who came up with the idea -Toss the idea out the window -Forget about the idea -Apologize to the community for proposing something so utterly stupid -Start playing the damn game so you guys have a clue as to what needs to be changed and what doesn't -Scrap this utterly preposterous idea
|
AeonOfTime
Minmatar Syrkos Technologies
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:51:00 -
[389]
Originally by: Law Enforcer just increase the cost of a carrier/mom if you want less people to be flying around in them. nerfing them to five fighters is just a bad idea. what happens if the support fleet gets wiped out and you have four/six battleships on you and you KNOW you could have killed them. but you magically cannot control more then five fighters even though a carrier should have the logistic capabilities to run an entire city because ccp says so. it defeats the role of a carrier. a carrier is a platform to launch and control all of its fighters and if it can't do that you better rename them to something else.
I could not agree more. 5 fighters for a "mothership" sounds ridiculous. Once it is alone, bye bye for sure. Some ships *should* be hard to kill, making all capital ships less powerful so that smaller gangs can take them down is the wrong direction to take IMO, and I am not a capital ship pilot!
If they are overpowered, which I do not believe they are, one way would be to make them less accessible - more difficult to buold and deploy, but not less powerful.
-- Read the captain's log at eve.aeonoftime.com
|
Darth Nerf
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:51:00 -
[390]
Originally by: Law Enforcer Edited by: Law Enforcer on 21/10/2007 11:32:53 ... allow them to launch all their fighters if they're GANGED with two or more battleships and just say it needs the extra logistics the battleships provide. Forcing them to assign fighters to other ships to use them though is absolutely absurd. ...
This line of thought is a good starting point.
Now off to train Adv Nerf Resistance
|
|
Kaaii
Caldari Omega Fleet Enterprises Executive Outcomes
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:51:00 -
[391]
Edited by: Kaaii on 21/10/2007 15:52:15
Originally by: Nahia Senne I'm not sure if CCP play this game any more. This will just delegate carriers to 24/7 POS sitting duty.
Not even this ....
I trained for triage module, thinking it would be the cream of the crop for fleep battles, in fight repairs....but no, is the most worthless module in the game....
Now it just has a ship to go with it...
/edit now maybe if I trained for "Giant wooden badger"....
According to Oveur, existing LSAA's already anchored will stay there. kieron Director of Community Relations,
|
Snakebloke
Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:51:00 -
[392]
Edited by: Snakebloke on 21/10/2007 15:51:38
Originally by: oDDiTy V2
Originally by: CCP Abathur Ladies and Gentlemen, please rest assured that the Dev team is paying attention to this thread. Don't take it all out on Zulu; he was just the messenger. As was stated in the original blog this is an idea and we thank you all for your constructive input. Please feel free to continue voicing what your concerns are and we will do our best to address them.
Here, let me help you out CCP Abathur.
The following is a list of ways you can address this issue: -Scrap the idea completely. -Fire the people who came up with the idea -Toss the idea out the window -Forget about the idea -Apologize to the community for proposing something so utterly stupid -Start playing the damn game so you guys have a clue as to what needs to be changed and what doesn't -Scrap this utterly preposterous idea
LAWL
|
Yaay
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:51:00 -
[393]
Originally by: CCP Abathur Ladies and Gentlemen, please rest assured that the Dev team is paying attention to this thread. Don't take it all out on Zulu; he was just the messenger. As was stated in the original blog this is an idea and we thank you all for your constructive input. Please feel free to continue voicing what your concerns are and we will do our best to address them.
The problem is, this is an idea that should have died long before it made it to a blog. More than anything, people are upset that this is the presentation that you made. I speak for myself when i say I'm less concerned about it being implemented and more that it was the idea put forth in this manner. Part of the gamer/dev relationship is about trust, and posting that had done a good job of breaking that trust. Try sampling next time before going public with an idea.
|
Tjakka
Contraband Inc. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:52:00 -
[394]
Edited by: Tjakka on 21/10/2007 15:52:10 Funny with all the blob warfare that the server cant manage they still want to make sure more ppl need to be on the field to make a other ship effective.
Great stuff, with that change we will see even more low sp idiots flying around just so a high SP player use teh full capability of his ship.
Wonder what the guy that came with this idea was smoking.
|
Icome4u
Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:52:00 -
[395]
Edited by: Icome4u on 21/10/2007 15:53:30 I'll make it simple. NO!
I understand your point of view (even tho weak) of Carriers and Motherships. But you CANNOT take something away this drasticaly. What makes carriers and motherhsips well... carriers and motherhsips? One BIG thing is the amount of drones/fighters they can use. Taking that away takes the essence of what they are away.
Find another way to nerf them (they don't even need a nerf common... 2-3 BS with smartbombs takes care of all those drones/fighters...)
You guys seriously need to STOP throwing the nerf bat blindly. This 'idea' has NOT been thought of, it looks like it's one new guy on the DEV team thinking of making a big impact. Well you it is a big impact, and a couple hundred less customers for CCP if this stupid idea goes through.
I honestly can't even think what is going through your mind(s) when posting this... 'thing'... What's next? Cut all damage high slots by half and give all boosters and reppers a 200% boost to make fights last longer? Oh and how about limiting 2 fleets per system with capping each fleet to 50 people! Their goes huge lag wars! Stop blobing by not allowing ships to stay around gates anymore!...
Rethink the idea CCP. I'm not getting paid to do your job (i pay to play and enjoy the game) so honestly this idea goes down the drain, very very bad idea.
Edit: Want to nerf it like this? Give fighters a 600% role damage bonus WHEN in control by the carrier. Oh and boost their hp since they will be very easy to kill and primaried. Unless you do this, the hundreds of posts of 'wtf ccp' will keep comming. ______
Originally by: Vyger If I lose connection while walking around a station will my avatar run off in a random direction and go hide in a corner?
|
Robet Katrix
Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:52:00 -
[396]
About 2-3 Months ago I was flying my carrier and i got caught.
we had a 15 man IAC gang coming through 49-u. (this was shortly after we had lost sedith's aeon) we only had about 7 in gang, 2 command ships a inty or two and something else. we used a claymore as bait figuring he could tank them until i exited warp and got remote reps on him.
Plan fell apart. i intiated warp early but claymore died as i locked him. the other 2 inties died as inties tend to do and it quickly became a chimera and an Eos vs. a 15 man gang. With only shield transfers i couldn't keep the Eos alive forever, he died after we had killed a phoon a rapier and something else because of his webs + my drones.
Now im trapped. 13 hostiles (more incoming from IAC territory) holding me in place a blasted caracal dampening me and no support anywheres close.
I have a good tank and they dont ahve much DPS so im survivng for the minute. i drop 12 t2 light drones (twice) but kill them with my own faction smartbombs. third time i managed to get them out and not kill them and they auto-aggro a cruiser. i wait a minute and figure hes probly tanking them. Recall them try mediums which auto aggro on an interceptor. recall them. I MANAGE TO LOCK a battlecruiser who gets in close. drop 3 web drones and 9 heavies. put my warp disruptor on him. they shoot my heavy drones down. i launch fighters. by this point hes out of warp disruptor range and all of a sudden i have lost all my fighters for 3 minutes while he takes them on a ride.
their support is continuing to grow.
i eventually get my fighters back and switch to sentries. sentries autoaggro something and pop it. im so happy ;p. they then shoot something else but i dont know what. it says their fighting so i let them do their thing.
they were attacking the damp caracal! yay. he warps out. im locking **** now. start shooting at their dictor with sentries he out-tracks them. try to switch. sentries are out of range. activate smartbombs and try to kill them so i can launch heavies and web drones. arazu just came in. im screwed. damp caracal is back now too.
wait 5 minutes under more fire tank is still holding. drop heavies and let them run loose.
10 minutes later friendly fleet comes to save me.
now.
with your changes what kind of defence do you think 5 drones would offer me vs. the 12 i had before?
|
Cypherous
Minmatar Liberty Rogues
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:52:00 -
[397]
Change looks good to me more bree for zulupark tbh ---------
Liberty Rogues Website
|
Riddick Valer
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:54:00 -
[398]
I could live with this if a few additional changes were made. Reduce: Price of current fighters. By at least 50% Introduce: Capital Class Fighters: Bigger than regular fighters. Much more damage. Much worse tracking. Only really usable against dreads and carriers. Cannot be assigned to others Capital Armor Repair Drones: Sized between heavy drones and fighters. Each one repairs about the same as 4-5 regular armor repair drones. Cannot be assigned to others. Can be deployed in Triage mode Capital Shield Drones: See above
The capital logistics drones would give a reason for a carrier to be on the front lines. A dread/titan/carrier with these repairing them would have significantly higher lasting power on the battlefield. Lighter enemy ships would target logistics drones, allowing the big guys to pound the actual ship. This would perfectly fit with CCP's new view of how carriers should be used.
|
Davlin Lotze
STK Scientific M. PIRE
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:54:00 -
[399]
There's no reason to read the thread or the responses. This "game balancer" needs to be fired post haste. His ignorance in terms of how motherships have already been nerfed to hell and back is painfully obvious. What does CCP need here--- a killmail from an ibis against a supercap to convince them the balancing not only has already been done but has went too far in the direction against supercaps.
|
Robet Katrix
Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:55:00 -
[400]
Originally by: CCP Abathur Ladies and Gentlemen, please rest assured that the Dev team is paying attention to this thread. Don't take it all out on Zulu; he was just the messenger. As was stated in the original blog this is an idea and we thank you all for your constructive input. Please feel free to continue voicing what your concerns are and we will do our best to address them.
You made it into a DEV BLOG. SAY ITS NOT HAPPENING RIGHT NOW and we will ALL shut up. otherwise we have to fight as only we know how to save our YEARS worth of training.
|
|
harddirve
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 15:55:00 -
[401]
If they want to go in that direction,they should make cruiser size figthers that we could equip them with all the equipment that there is available(lasers,artillery,sheild booster ect...)that way the carrier wouldnt be so much left out and other gang members could fly around having with a wing of drones or fithers as wing men.
|
Vaedian GER
Omega Fleet Enterprises Executive Outcomes
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:02:00 -
[402]
Originally by: Windsoord Maelstrom carrier 800m fittings 100-200m Fighters 9-20x15m Skills 600m Training Time 1 year
Firepower equal to a Dominix
Priceless
|
katz3
PPN United Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:02:00 -
[403]
Considering that 1/3 of today's fleets already consist of capital ships (most carriers i saw were 70 at once), I think zulupark's proposal is ok. Otherwise all ships < capital ships will become obsolete in the future, since more and more players will be able o fly carrier ans stuff...
With this change carriers/ms would still need smaller ships to use their full potential. ___________________
Originally by: Kasak Black ...in EVE people die!
|
Snakebloke
Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:03:00 -
[404]
Originally by: Druadan Edited by: Druadan on 21/10/2007 15:59:03
Originally by: Ztrain
Originally by: CCP Abathur Please feel free to continue voicing what your concerns are and we will do our best to address them.
When are you going to hire some talent?
Z
No kidding.
Seriously, CCP, some of us would work for you for pittence, and have much better heads in the game than the people coming up with these ideas. The Rorqual, the carrier ship bay nerf, and this piece of rubbish.
This idea shouldn't even have made it to a devblog. How the rest of the game design team didn't shoot it down before the idea arrived to slap us all in the face is very worrying for those of us who plan on playing this game for a long time.
So, yeah, give me a job
[edit: zomg I used a yank word, replaced it with a more suitably british word]
agreed. I honestly dont know if CCP Devs play eve or not but id be surprised if they play that much. Also, the one group that could have saved all this embarrasment, the ISD lads, have been axed by the sounds of it so now theres no way for these obscene ideas to be filtered before reaching us...tut tut
p.s i promise thats my last post :P
------------------------
------------------------
|
eicon
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:04:00 -
[405]
I feel that there is even an easier fix to this type of an issue. It seems to me alot of the problems around this are based on the low sec space ganking, With the soon introduction of drone bandwidth, Why dont you look at setting the drone bandwidth of the carrier and mothership to the security of the space they are in. So if they are in 0.0 they get what they get today, but if they are in .4 space maybe reduced by 1/2 of the bandwidth. And if your in a system with sov 4 maybe you get an increase of 25% to your fighters since your fighting on your home turf.
But I agree with many of the other posts, these ships cost billions of isk to train for and field, and lower there damage output to battlecruiser strengths is pretty silly in my eyes.
CCP please review other solutions to this such problem.
|
Elite MIner
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:05:00 -
[406]
Dear CCP pls remove from me all carrier skills trained, give me back 9months subscription fee and 1bill spent on carrier skills or u can fire this dev. member who wrote this idiot blog.
Seriously u havent heard about logistic cruisers??? (what r much better for boosting gang members than a carrier and time to train a logistic its 10x less)
What for to train 9months for boosting a pos a little bit much effective than a logistic cruiser??? But yeah i understand your reasons... CCP its still scary to hell about Goons threadnought. From my pov u have no respect for people who playing from 4years+, the customers who help u to develop this game so many years and people who dont let u down. Always EVE was laggy and patch after patch didnt resolve that thing. Drone patch (when u removed 15 drones from domi and others drone ships)
I dont wanna give u other advice , i dont wanna propose u another thing. Just throw here how many carrier skillbooks was buyed or how many are in progress to be buyed (look at people who's training advanced drone interfacing without to have carrier skillbook yet) What satisfaction u offer to those customers? 9month training + an expensive useless ship. ty CCP, much respect from a 4year old player.
|
Snakebloke
Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:05:00 -
[407]
Originally by: ArmyOfMe
Originally by: Snakebloke i promise this is my last post :P
ok i take it back this is my last post..
ROFLMFAO! >.<
------------------------
|
ArmyOfMe
hirr Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:05:00 -
[408]
i would rather see capital ships removed from the game all togheter then this kind of nerf
Come to think about it, removing caps wouldnt be to bad really
|
Sgt Blodpudding
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:06:00 -
[409]
Originally by: Saituri Welcome to Eve-online Sry BoB-online Ah sry here is the latest, Nerf-online..
Fixed
|
Cadela Fria
Amarr Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:06:00 -
[410]
Originally by: Snakebloke
Stuff
For the love of God fix your signature, it's too big ! -_-;;
Sorry just had to let that out.
|
|
Yaay
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:07:00 -
[411]
Originally by: katz3 Considering that 1/3 of today's fleets already consist of capital ships (most carriers i saw were 70 at once), I think zulupark's proposal is ok. Otherwise all ships < capital ships will become obsolete in the future, since more and more players will be able o fly carrier ans stuff...
With this change carriers/ms would still need smaller ships to use their full potential.
the problem is not the fighters, the problem is the disposable nature of carriers and this remote repping bull****. Give Moms the ability to remote rep, take it away from carriers. The easier they are to kill, the harder they are to replace, the less you'll see them in mass. The same is true for all blobing.
|
Emsigma
Contraband Inc. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:07:00 -
[412]
I think that people should unfock themselves and start realizing that this is players vs devs and not bob vs goons+devs.
Some of the best ideas in this thread has come from goons and some of the most vocal resistance has been from goons.
NOONE gains from this suggestion while EVERYONE loses =/ ---
|
CopyCatz
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:07:00 -
[413]
Originally by: Snakebloke
p.s i promise thats my last post :P
------------------------
Thanks dude.. most people inhere already have red spots in their eyes with anger, no need to see your huge red balls all the time.
|
Blind Man
Angel Deep Corporation
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:08:00 -
[414]
awesome changes guys, don't listen to the whiners here. everyone knows it needs to be done and anyone who says otherwise is just angry that their pwnmobiles got taken away
|
Snakebloke
Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:09:00 -
[415]
Originally by: Cadela Fria
Originally by: Snakebloke
Stuff
For the love of God fix your signature, it's too big ! -_-;;
Sorry just had to let that out.
lol ok sorry :) ------------------------
|
Cascade Welp
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:10:00 -
[416]
Do you BoB and MC guys want some tinfoil hats? You guys are pretty paranoid about a goon-developer relationship, maybe they finally got the devs' MSN handles?
|
Mechanical Death
Minmatar Chosen Path Warp to Desktop
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:10:00 -
[417]
Originally by: Blind Man awesome changes guys, don't listen to the whiners here. everyone knows it needs to be done and anyone who says otherwise is just angry that their pwnmobiles got taken away
You must ride the short yellow bus to school if you really meant that statement. Chosen Path [CHSN]
|
The Economist
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:10:00 -
[418]
I'm using the length of time it takes for snakebloke's sig to get nerfed as a measure of how much attention CCP's paying to this thread
Sig removed. Please keep sigs to 400x120 pixels and 24000 bytes in size or less. -Kaemonn |
Armus Jenson
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:10:00 -
[419]
Originally by: eicon I feel that there is even an easier fix to this type of an issue. It seems to me alot of the problems around this are based on the low sec space ganking, With the soon introduction of drone bandwidth, Why dont you look at setting the drone bandwidth of the carrier and mothership to the security of the space they are in. So if they are in 0.0 they get what they get today, but if they are in .4 space maybe reduced by 1/2 of the bandwidth. And if your in a system with sov 4 maybe you get an increase of 25% to your fighters since your fighting on your home turf.
But I agree with many of the other posts, these ships cost billions of isk to train for and field, and lower there damage output to battlecruiser strengths is pretty silly in my eyes.
CCP please review other solutions to this such problem.
People are getting ganked by motherships with smartbombs not fighters.
Nothing proposed will solve that.
|
FraXy
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:11:00 -
[420]
I`m sure you are a reasonable dude since you`ve had a steady job for 2 years.
You are probably very successful and aim for the top.
Always right on time and want stuff to be perfect.
I can respect that.
Ok, now take your head up from that *****pipe and stop being an idiot.
First day on the job and get the majority of eve on your bad side.
Want to keep your job start by looking into Amarr and not go off doing this kind of crap.
No wonder i don`t nearly have the stomach to stick to this game with idiots like you running things.
|
|
queen1121
Empire Dreams
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:11:00 -
[421]
Originally by: ArmyOfMe [link]http://codebloo.net/stuff/picard-headesk.jpg[/link]
Win
|
viojs
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:11:00 -
[422]
Edited by: viojs on 21/10/2007 16:12:14 nm
|
DrWorm
Shiva Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:13:00 -
[423]
Ok, you've shared your idea now I'll share mine.
How about when the Dev's need ideas to sort out balance and performance issues how about you come to us. The ammount of knowledge of game mechanics and balance issues the community has is amazing. And some of the responces community members have put forward in threads like these are what we need to fix things.
So if there is a problem with Carriers eatting BS's too quick, ask the community how to fix it. The answers will point you to the way.
This game lives through its community and the community should most definatly be a part of the solution.
So Try it. Open the thread; pose the question to the community. How would you balance the amount of damage that carriers do to BS's?
Myself, I would look at the fighters not the carriers. After they all they only carry the fighters the fighters are the ones laying down the hurt.
|
Snakebloke
Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:14:00 -
[424]
Originally by: The Economist I'm using the length of time it takes for snakebloke's sig to get nerfed as a measure of how much attention CCP's paying to this thread
lol what can i say i like attention...is it better now ? :P ------------------------
|
Popperr
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:14:00 -
[425]
It sure is harsh on carrier pilots that they will now need two other players in their gang who aren't in capitals to get to their full firepower.
|
Zyrla Bladestorm
Minmatar Foundation R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:14:00 -
[426]
This idea would seem to be pushing carriers back to sitting at pos delegating 14-15 fighters and being bored stiff instead of fitting for combat and getting in there, remote repping/boosting where possible. . ----- Apologies for any rambling that may have just occurred.
|
Tarron Sarek
Gallente Endica Enterprises
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:15:00 -
[427]
To be honest, this idea sounds more like a crutch to me.
Wasn't it fully expected that people would for example use the Thanatos over a battleship anytime? First you create two ship classes with immense firepower against pretty much every opponent, then you're surprised about people using those to gank.
How about making fighters really inefficient against frigates? Why is a fighter tougher and more dangerous than a frigate? Given the fact that a frigate is bigger and more sophisticated. How about making fighters a lot cheaper and expendable, but also a lot cheaper. More like a swarm than single cruiser-battlecruiser like entities.
Don't get me wrong, I do think the limited control idea might help the current EVE gameplay, but it's a crutch, because the problem lies deep inside the design concept.
_________________________________ - Balance is power, guard it well - |
Orree
Gallente Shiva Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:15:00 -
[428]
The idea? As Mr. Horse would say, "No sir...I don't like it."
How about, rather than gimping things that don't need gimped, you give carrier/mothership/drone ship pilots a better UI and a more variety in fighters (in terms of what they can be used for).
In a world of lag which allows for way less than perfect coordination of how your fighters are used, I can't see any point in further complicating (and thus decreasing) the firepower of carriers by forcing carrier pilots to assign fighters to other pilots, who themselves have trouble employing them in the situations that exist now, let alone any new situations that will arise because of this nerf.
Both of these ships are dependent upon support fleets, as it is...well, unless we're talking about motherships in low-sec.
Seriously, guys. This is just another case of CCP spending time on something that isn't needed and ignoring (or not completing) enhancements/changes that are sorely needed.
"How much easier it is to be critical than to be correct." ---Benjamin Disraeli |
Coolgamer
Minmatar Res Publica R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:18:00 -
[429]
Edited by: Coolgamer on 21/10/2007 16:24:17 Hey if you want to work on some change for carriers user here are some very good ideas
i'll link them to you since seem most of them just go to oblivion, instead of those stupid "omg i got an idea i'll nerf the game and ruin your fun"
example 1 : give ability to make shortcuts better : shortcuts for drones like using shortcuts for controlling DRONES, omg this is an idea interesting !
example 2 : have some DECENT drone menu, and not the one in overview thta is damn laggy thanks to database when you carrer carries over 500 drones in multiple folders.
like : i simply love the following one : http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=422990
one of my favorite oldest (the stacking thing) : http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=9431 yes 4 years we wait for a BETTER DRONE MANAGEMENT system
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=440979 http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=279072 http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=497025
Some goods ideas from Aeon also : http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=494448
example 3 : About bumping (yes bumping super cap and cap is silly and even though last patch, game mechanics dont reflect what would be reality) : funny one : http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=490326 realistic one : http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=479182 (in a space opera when a small ship rush and crash on a large one, expect the small ship to die, the large one unharmed) Basically a bumped ship should not be stopped if it's size larger than the ship bumping him
example 4 : well your try now, use your brain, but NOT A DAMN NERF !!
you have many ideas there, all without any devs reply, take a coffee and read them instead thinking or nerfing the game that cost your brain nothing to do.
|
Armus Jenson
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:18:00 -
[430]
Originally by: Tarron Sarek To be honest, this idea sounds more like a crutch to me.
Wasn't it fully expected that people would for example use the Thanatos over a battleship anytime? First you create two ship classes with immense firepower against pretty much every opponent, then you're surprised about people using those to gank.
How about making fighters really inefficient against frigates? Why is a fighter tougher and more dangerous than a frigate? Given the fact that a frigate is bigger and more sophisticated. How about making fighters a lot cheaper and expendable, but also a lot cheaper. More like a swarm than single cruiser-battlecruiser like entities.
Don't get me wrong, I do think the limited control idea might help the current EVE gameplay, but it's a crutch, because the problem lies deep inside the design concept.
To be quite Honest, Fighters do cost 50x as much as your frigate. and their also protecting something that costs 1000 times more than your frigate.
Refer to my earlier post about not caring about noob whiners in their first t1 fitted bs getting blown up when they decide to Solo into 0.0 cause they think their ready.
|
|
Sprzedawczyk
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:18:00 -
[431]
Snakebloke: Your sig is full of awesome. Evemail me a link to it's full resolution version, I want to look at it for ages without end.
|
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:18:00 -
[432]
So you are nerfing capitals AGAIN making yet another useless heavy SP ship. Now carriers will sit right by pos shields and deploy the fighters again rather then being on the front line.
Great direction all right. The only direction I have seen out of CCP is to nerf every ship that takes a lot of training to get into.
It's all a total number of players you can cram into a node game anymore. POS warfare sucks, blob warfare sucks so quit encouraging it.
It's funny, people used to complain about DEVS playing the game, now I wonder if DEVS play this game at all.
|
Pallidum Treponema
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:19:00 -
[433]
Originally by: Vegeta
Insurance Motherships are fine as they are. I may be slightly biased because I fly one, but the recent nerfs which hit titans the hardest were not easy on mom pilots either. Notice the recent trends in mothership deaths.
Your problem is not with the usability of the ships, but the lack of penalty when they die. Notice how motherships and titans have slowly been withdrawn from direct 0.0 conflicts after the bubble changes (took some people longer to figure out than others). This is because the penalty for losing one is high.
Remove insurance from ships that die in 0.0. Remove insurance from ships that die while criminally flagged. Make capital ship losses matter and people won't use them so carelessly. I doubt you realize on how many levels this is beneficial for the game.
Insurance is the number one reason for inflation and by far Eve's biggest ISK well. Capital ships are not the problem here, insurance is.
This is, in fact, a very good point. Removing insurance will make 0.0 warfare much more interesting. There will, of course, be very significant impacts on the economy in eve, which NEEDS to be analyzed first <-- VERY important! -- MC's Swedish squidshark
|
gordon cain
Minmatar x13
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:20:00 -
[434]
Why not just say that you cant make corp bellow 50members.
This nerf will render all small corps with cap abillities useless.
Im sick of hearing about nerfing this and adding that.
!!FIX THE THINGS THAT ARE BROKEN FIRST!!
Still we have problems with desync with moms and big gangs.
Gordon Cain
"Allways remember. Never argue with idiots, they will just drag you down to their level, and beat you with experience" |
Cadela Fria
Amarr Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:20:00 -
[435]
Edited by: Cadela Fria on 21/10/2007 16:21:49
Originally by: Snakebloke
Originally by: Cadela Fria
Originally by: Snakebloke
Stuff
For the love of God fix your signature, it's too big ! -_-;;
Sorry just had to let that out.
lol ok sorry :)
Dude it's still too big, direct quote from the forum rules:
Originally by: Forum Rules
The size limits for signature graphics are as follows: Maximum height: 120 pixels Maximum width: 400 pixels Maximum file size: 24,000 bytes (not kbytes)
I'm betting you that your signature exceeds 120 pixels in height
|
picchiatello
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:20:00 -
[436]
limiting to only 5 drone yu can control isn't good...
|
Kalda Centauri
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:21:00 -
[437]
Hey I lost my shuttle to a low sec gatecamp of BS's! That was sooo unfair11`111111!!!111 I demapnd you require BS's to have to use firgate buddies to target other ships so they can use more than one gun/drone on me! For fairness!!!\
What, it's the same thing as this proposed capital ship idea.
|
Yaay
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:21:00 -
[438]
Edited by: Yaay on 21/10/2007 16:23:35 U know what my original vision of a carrier was, long before titans, long before jump bridges.
Carriers were well arm (ie, 10 fighter, not 20... also some sort of AA type gunnery) bases of operation in systems where there was nothing. Carriers could be docked in, like a station... if the carrier died, all ships/pilots were in pods in space. You could refit while docked, not outside. You could change ships while docked, not outside. You could be jumped while docked, not outside. Remote repping was non existent, because honestly, it wasn't needed, so why should it be allowed. The only way it could have worked would be to use resources while docked in a carrier which resulted in limited repairing for fleet ships... not capitals and beyond.
Carriers would have had basically a mothership like tank, and probably a mothership like cost... maybe more like 7 bil ish. Ship bays would determine how many people could dock. Say maybe 5 Mil ship bay space... this would be for docked people, back up ships, etc. The corp hanger would house ship gear for ships docked (not predominately excessive jump fuel like now).
People who were taking heavy damage in fights could dock at the carrier for some protection while trying to recoup... though this would have it's limitations... certainly not docking/undocking bull****. Carriers would be the means of jumping fleets across space... everyone dock up, carrier jumps... everyone undocks and works off the carriers from within enemy lines. Maybe carriers would have to anchor for docking/fighters.... 10 min anchoring/unanchoring sounds good... also prevents cloaking.
This was what i hoped.... The devs let me down from day one, it just became another drone boat.
|
Jakiri
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:22:00 -
[439]
Originally by: CCP Abathur Ladies and Gentlemen, please rest assured that the Dev team is paying attention to this thread. Don't take it all out on Zulu; he was just the messenger. As was stated in the original blog this is an idea and we thank you all for your constructive input. Please feel free to continue voicing what your concerns are and we will do our best to address them.
Thank you for making this explicit.
|
Galactic reporter
Galactic reporter independant news corp
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:23:00 -
[440]
wow THANK YOU CCP for nerfing more ships ingame. Soon there wont be any fun ships to fly
|
|
hattifnatt
Gallente The Movement
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:24:00 -
[441]
crap idea tbh.
Originally by: Nicholas Barker i tackled somebody in the middle of nowhere, and told them i wouldn't leave untill they stripped on web cam. Who wants the video?
|
Shar'Tuk TheHated
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:24:00 -
[442]
This is a HORRIBLE idea! I was planning on training into Capital ships but now that I see your thinking of doing this I wont WASTE all those skillpoints! I feel bad for all the guys that already trained into them. They are capital ships.. let them earn the name capital yeah?
DRINK RUM It fights scurvy & boosts morale!
THE BEATINGS WILL CONTINUE UNTIL MORALE IMPROVES! |
Anglo
Minmatar Astral Mexicans
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:24:00 -
[443]
Originally by: Blind Man awesome changes guys, don't listen to the whiners here. everyone knows it needs to be done and anyone who says otherwise is just angry that their pwnmobiles got taken away
buhu where was you killed ?
wake up...
|
Tarron Sarek
Gallente Endica Enterprises
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:25:00 -
[444]
Originally by: Vaedian GER
Originally by: Windsoord Maelstrom carrier 800m fittings 100-200m Fighters 9-20x15m Skills 600m Training Time 1 year
Firepower equal to a Dominix
Priceless
Now THIS is the problem Zulupark & others. Firepower is all that matters in most players' heads. Way to go creating the Thanatos and Nyx with their unique (regarding carriers) damage bonus. Which ships do low sec gankers fly again? If at all, each race's carrier could've received a 2-3% racial damage bonus, i.e. 2% per lvl thermal fighter dmg for gallente, 2% per lvl EM for Amarr, etc. But then again, why give a support ship a gank bonus in the first place? Why not making drone control units seriously seriously gimp a carrier's tanking and/or retreat abilities? In addition to huge CPU and Powergrid needs a mass/agility penalty might increase balance.
_________________________________ - Balance is power, guard it well - |
rockerrikke
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:25:00 -
[445]
Originally by: CCP Abathur Ladies and Gentlemen, please rest assured that the Dev team is paying attention to this thread. Don't take it all out on Zulu; he was just the messenger. As was stated in the original blog this is an idea and we thank you all for your constructive input. Please feel free to continue voicing what your concerns are and we will do our best to address them.
Most people should already have considered the possibility that this was the case - in many case in life, it often falls on a new/unpopular guy to do messy jobs - but he should still have had the balls to shrug off all the personal remarks and been on the professional about it. About the worst you can do is trying to argue or fight back when you upset people like this. People have good reason to want to serial pod him for this outrage of an idea. He should have had the sense to ignore it and let them get it of their chest. As it is he is now branded as being to dangerous for any pilot to entrust him with influence on game mechanics.
The proposed idea is a huge nerf to the offensive capabilites of a carrier/ms. Why? Well to sum up on previous arguments, keeping the same level offensive capability hinges entirely on delegation, something which I am told already means less damage per fighter/drone. And delegation is a logistical nightmare, compounded by the current latency issues in any sizeable engagement, controllers leaving or getting blow up, etc.
Additionally, the idea does not make carriers/ms better at support, which we can only hope is the real motive, it merely makes them much worse at reaching out and crushing. There has already been several suggestions for improving the support role (remote repping), but these mainly hinge on 2 problems that do not appear to have solutions forthcoming. Namely, lock time on friendlies and module activation latency in battles, both heavily contributing in making any repping come too late. You also hear capacitor problems (sustainablity) mentioned.
- yes, forum alt, no, not a capship pilot -
|
Anglo
Minmatar Astral Mexicans
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:26:00 -
[446]
infact BEEF up the fighters a carier and mom can mannage.. make the fighters clusters of 5 but u can launch 50.... mmmmmmm tasty...
|
Raoul Endymion
Gallente x13
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:26:00 -
[447]
this is one of the worst nerfs ever, and will have a profound effect on eve...to the worse in my opinion :/
x13 Website ~ x13 Killboard ~ x13 Recruitment |
Galactic reporter
Galactic reporter independant news corp
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:28:00 -
[448]
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/welovefighters/
|
General StarScream
THE DECEPTIC0NS
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:28:00 -
[449]
Great work.
I think if you make them for support, the carriers should get a bouns to amount repped by armor and sheild maintaing drones.
like 5% to amount reped per lvl or even 10%.
now they could be able to send 5 heavy armor or sheild drones to help 4 gang mates. if they are ment for support they should work best as a suportrole, both with dam and healing.
|
busta nut
Exanimo Inc Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:29:00 -
[450]
Originally by: Blind Man awesome changes guys, don't listen to the whiners here. everyone knows it needs to be done and anyone who says otherwise is just angry that their pwnmobiles got taken away
yes, completely ignore the 600 people opposed to this idea and listen to just this guy
silence pls
|
|
Il Reverendo
Minmatar Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:30:00 -
[451]
Originally by: CCP Abathur Ladies and Gentlemen, please rest assured that the Dev team is paying attention to this thread. Don't take it all out on Zulu; he was just the messenger. As was stated in the original blog this is an idea and we thank you all for your constructive input. Please feel free to continue voicing what your concerns are and we will do our best to address them.
My chief concern is your use of the present tense when describing this idea; please address my concerns by changing that to "this was an idea".
|
Elementatia
Caldari Sev3rance
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:30:00 -
[452]
Why do think you need to change the fightingpower of the carrier ? A Carrier is a powerfull weapon. It is big, it is tough and it is very expensive.
You should not change the fighting abilities of a carrier per se, but you may change signatur size for his drones (only efficent against other capital ships). Or go another way. Look at those normal "earth" Carriers at the sea. They do need support, because they are slow (they can¦t follow a fleeing enemy), they do need much fuel and are expensive to run (Need for support fleet for fuel purposes). And after all. If a carrier is camping alone, then why don¦t you give some bombers a bonus for hitting the carrier harder with EW-Weapons (of yourse with longer targeting to calibrate his bombs (That would mean the bomber would need support by a remote repairing unit but the bomber would be a threat for the carrier. Not to destroy, but to disable some of his abilities for a while)) ?
|
Tarron Sarek
Gallente Endica Enterprises
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:31:00 -
[453]
Originally by: Armus Jenson To be quite Honest, Fighters do cost 50x as much as your frigate.
Dude, I'm flying Recons, Battleships and HACs. I simply referred to frigates, as frigates and Assault Ships are pretty much useless and unpopular atm. Apart from that, please read carefully. I proposed a cost change, so please don't interpret to your liking.
Capital ships need a weak point or weak points. Otherwise the core concept is bigger=better, which Imho is a very bad game design, 'cause it tends to fail terribly in the long run.
_________________________________ - Balance is power, guard it well - |
Rusty PwnStar
Rampage Eternal Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:31:00 -
[454]
Originally by: Tarron Sarek Now THIS is the problem Zulupark & others. Firepower is all that matters in most players' heads. Way to go creating the Thanatos and Nyx with their unique (regarding carriers) damage bonus. Which ships do low sec gankers fly again? If at all, each race's carrier could've received a 2-3% racial damage bonus, i.e. 2% per lvl thermal fighter dmg for gallente, 2% per lvl EM for Amarr, etc. But then again, why give a support ship a gank bonus in the first place? Why not making drone control units seriously seriously gimp a carrier's tanking and/or retreat abilities? In addition to huge CPU and Powergrid needs a mass/agility penalty might increase balance.
Why nerf all Carriers and MS, just because MS gank nubs in low sec. Just nerf their use there.
afaik most lowsec MS gankers use smartbombs anyway.
Regards Rusty |
DJTheBaron
Caldari THE INQUISITI0N
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:31:00 -
[455]
I could understand limiting drones to reduce lagg, if they recieved a damage bonus like domi/ishtar.
However i dont know where your getting the math that fighters wtf pwn bs. My carrier with 9 drones cant kill a bs in less than 2 minuites, and if they tank or plate then i cant kill them.
You have also completley taken motherships out of the equasion. Thay do twice the damage of a carrier, and barley tank twice as hard, and are invul to ewar. Now they will only be ewar invul carriers.
It is completley irresponsable to make the change as proposed. People have trained for years, the ships are almost 2 years old. For a player playing eve for 4 years, and comiting 2 years of their skil tree to fly capital ships to the best of their ability, are are effectivley removing 12-18months of their hard work and gimping their isk investment. If someone has taken the time to level 5 their drone skills in every field, level 5 their ship and perhaps another race. because they can only deploy 25%-50% worth of the drones they could in the past, and any fighters deployed to a gang made DO NOT carry the capital ships skills over. You have effectivley shafted anyone who put the time in.
We are not talking neft an overpowered easily accessable ship worth <200mil fitted and 3-6 months training time. We are talking Over nerf a powerful ship to the tune of 2-5bil a fully drones and fitted carrier or 30-50 bil fitted mothership, each with 1-2 years of skill points invested.
Seriousily consider this when balancing the game, otherwise those extra weeks and months per extra 5% bonus in level 5 are a complete insult to every player you ask to train them. ___________ "The Views & Opinions Expressed In This Post Represent Your Own, So Dont Bother Arguing" DJTheBaron: Diplomacy 4TW |
Davlin Lotze
STK Scientific M. PIRE
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:32:00 -
[456]
Edited by: Davlin Lotze on 21/10/2007 16:33:03 The biggest problem here is that CCP INACCURATELY PERCEIVES a problem to exist where one in fact does not.
All this horsedung about "moms are overpowered solopwnmobiles" has went to their heads.
CCP chose poorly when they decided to listen to the pillow humping, mouth breathing, short bus crowd that really really just wants caps to "Go away" altogether in Eve. They don't think that they are listening to that group or that the "get rid of caps" is that group's ultimate goal. But rest assured it is. Perhaps not "get rid" in a literal sense, but "neuter beyond usefulness" is more appropriate.
No solution that CCP fashions will be acceptable as long as they grossly misperceive "the problem."
The real problem is that 20 mil isk ships can lock down billions in supercap. And, not only that, that 20mil isk ship along with large bubbles have introduced an "i-win" element to closing off entire sections of space to non-cap movement. Spend a few months rebalancing THAT if you need something to do to justify your jobs :)
|
1Of9
Gallente The Circle STYX.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:39:00 -
[457]
Originally by: CCP Abathur Ladies and Gentlemen, please rest assured that the Dev team is paying attention to this thread. Don't take it all out on Zulu; he was just the messenger. As was stated in the original blog this is an idea and we thank you all for your constructive input. Please feel free to continue voicing what your concerns are and we will do our best to address them.
/o\ it's even worse!! ALL dev's are INSANE .. PLZ go back to school guys!!
|
iudex
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:40:00 -
[458]
Can't believe you are thinking about nerfing motherships even more, wasn't the loss of tackle-immunity in 0.0 enough ? If you really insist on that, then please give something to motherships in exchange, that would justify the high price, better cap regain, nos immunity or something but don't take away almost all the offensive abilities without improving anything, this is wrong and very frustrating. My skills |
Coolgamer
Minmatar Res Publica R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:40:00 -
[459]
Edited by: Coolgamer on 21/10/2007 16:40:57
Originally by: Tarron Sarek
Originally by: Armus Jenson To be quite Honest, Fighters do cost 50x as much as your frigate.
Dude, I'm flying Recons, Battleships and HACs. I simply referred to frigates, as frigates and Assault Ships are pretty much useless and unpopular atm. Apart from that, please read carefully. I proposed a cost change, so please don't interpret to your liking.
Capital ships need a weak point or weak points. Otherwise the core concept is bigger=better, which Imho is a very bad game design, 'cause it tends to fail terribly in the long run.
again a cap ship is as weak as ANY OTHER ship to EW, so seriously no need to add more weakness compared to other ships
damp DO the job on a cap ship, yes it does, and if you fly recons you know for sure as webs DO the job on a cap ship
get 1 arazu + 1 rappier + 4-5 bs and you kill a carrier
|
Falryx
Caldari Sturmgrenadier Inc R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:40:00 -
[460]
This seems shockingly ill-conceived.
First, carriers were used for hauling. Then along came the change with containers and ships in SMAs. As a result, the carrier-as-hauler is significantly reduced in efficiency. This change was made to paraphrase CCP "because we want carriers to be combat ships."
Now along comes a suggestion that instead of combat ships, you want carriers to sit back, never get used except just outside a POS shield. As it stands the carrier is not that fun to fly into combat -- this change will simply make it more so.
Bad choice.
|
|
Mr Mozzie
Evolution
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:41:00 -
[461]
Originally by: Vegeta Remove insurance from ships that die in 0.0. Remove insurance from ships that die while criminally flagged. Make capital ship losses matter and people won't use them so carelessly. I doubt you realize on how many levels this is beneficial for the game.
I have thought for a long time that removing insurance would be a good move. But I really like your idea because it targets 0.0 warfare, and not people from empire.
But, as Pallidum said in response you your post, the implications need to be considered first.
Originally by: Pallidum Treponema This is, in fact, a very good point. Removing insurance will make 0.0 warfare much more interesting. There will, of course, be very significant impacts on the economy in eve, which NEEDS to be analyzed first <-- VERY important!
|
Armus Jenson
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:42:00 -
[462]
Originally by: Tarron Sarek
Originally by: Armus Jenson To be quite Honest, Fighters do cost 50x as much as your frigate.
Dude, I'm flying Recons, Battleships and HACs. I simply referred to frigates, as frigates and Assault Ships are pretty much useless and unpopular atm. Apart from that, please read carefully. I proposed a cost change, so please don't interpret to your liking.
Capital ships need a weak point or weak points. Otherwise the core concept is bigger=better, which Imho is a very bad game design, 'cause it tends to fail terribly in the long run.
You missed the point of my reply. I think the fighter price is fair for what they do, and they need to do what they do to protect the billion isk carrier.
If you dont want to lose your ship you have the option of staying in High security space.
When you get the skills and exp to fly a larger ship and get accepted to a larger alliance, then you can come to low sec and 0.0.
But carriers are doing exactly what their designed for and are certainly not a solo ship anyhow.
|
Yaay
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:44:00 -
[463]
Originally by: Mr Mozzie
Originally by: Vegeta Remove insurance from ships that die in 0.0. Remove insurance from ships that die while criminally flagged. Make capital ship losses matter and people won't use them so carelessly. I doubt you realize on how many levels this is beneficial for the game.
I have thought for a long time that removing insurance would be a good move. But I really like your idea because it targets 0.0 warfare, and not people from empire.
But, as Pallidum said in response you your post, the implications need to be considered first.
Originally by: Pallidum Treponema This is, in fact, a very good point. Removing insurance will make 0.0 warfare much more interesting. There will, of course, be very significant impacts on the economy in eve, which NEEDS to be analyzed first <-- VERY important!
yes, it's called moving all lvl 4/lvl 5 agents to low sec, no exceptions
|
Imperius Blackheart
Caldari Trinity Nova KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:44:00 -
[464]
Aaah the amazing unifying power of stupid dev suggestions.
I've never felt so much love in the eve-o forums. I think CCP needs to decide what they actually want capitals to be, instead of saying, you know that 8-9 month training you just underwent, that ages of grinding isk, and bordom you had to endure to get this ship... well now a Navy Mega is more appealing.
Why would anyone want a carrier, or to continue to use theirs with this suggestion? Let alone mothers? http://www.myspace.com/cakeisalie
|
Faeryl Heaven
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:46:00 -
[465]
Originally by: Mr Mozzie
Originally by: Vegeta Remove insurance from ships that die in 0.0. Remove insurance from ships that die while criminally flagged. Make capital ship losses matter and people won't use them so carelessly. I doubt you realize on how many levels this is beneficial for the game.
I have thought for a long time that removing insurance would be a good move. But I really like your idea because it targets 0.0 warfare, and not people from empire.
But, as Pallidum said in response you your post, the implications need to be considered first.
Originally by: Pallidum Treponema This is, in fact, a very good point. Removing insurance will make 0.0 warfare much more interesting. There will, of course, be very significant impacts on the economy in eve, which NEEDS to be analyzed first <-- VERY important!
seriously who insure a carrier when fighting? being a 2* carrier pilot with a 1b fit on both i never insured them when i lost the 2 this is the kind of ship you do not need to insure because you play with it more cautious that a bs, making the ship last longer and thus no point in paying millions in insurance every 3 months.
|
Maxima Maxi
Pink Bunnies C0VEN
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:46:00 -
[466]
This is the most idiotic idea i could possibly imagine. Why would we even bother to train for carrier or mothership if they would be nothing more than oversized logistic ships with some drones in it.
|
Icome4u
Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:46:00 -
[467]
CCP is scared of solowtfpwnmobile Carriers and Motherships. Well their's a price for that, they die. ______
Originally by: Vyger If I lose connection while walking around a station will my avatar run off in a random direction and go hide in a corner?
|
1Of9
Gallente The Circle STYX.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:48:00 -
[468]
Originally by: ArmyOfMe
this --^
|
DarQ Knight
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:50:00 -
[469]
With all the people opposed to this, CCP also needs to remember, most capital pilots have 2 if not 3 accounts.
Also, every capital pilot might not be a forum-typed person and may not even post.
So Balance the numbers out here, if 25% of the people posting would quit the game over this. Thats potentially 50% of the population of the thread now due to multipal accounts.
Take into account the guys that just arent post'ers. Theres another 5% , multiply that thats 10% more.
So your are "potentially" gonna lose 60% of characters over 2 years old.
Now if you want to go even deeper... Think about some people that are logging in, dreaming of the day they can have a carrier, read this thread and think....What the hell am I working toward now? Is there any ship I really want to fly once I get my skills up.
If CCP wants to stay in business they need to back off capital ships for a while and come up with some more Constructive ways to make them BETTER not worse.
-DarQ
|
Marcus Druallis
Quantum Industries Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:50:00 -
[470]
Tbh, this is a very bad idea IMO. If this is the route that carriers and motherships are going down, I want a nerf on their ship cost as well. 500 million for the carriers please. --
Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed filesize of 24000 bytes - Devil ([email protected]) |
|
p0pup7arge7
Shooting Gallery
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:50:00 -
[471]
Originally by: CCP Wrangler
Zulupark makes his introductory Dev Blog from his new position in the Game Design team. Following in the footsteps of TomB and Tuxford, Zulu is now working on balancing different elements of EVE and one of the first projects he gets to work on is the relationship between Supercapitals, Fighters and Drones. Be gentle on him, he's got a tough one!
Zulu, welcome and Wrangler I hope you ensured that he understood, that by posting that he was gonna get pwned in the face.
|
1Of9
Gallente The Circle STYX.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:51:00 -
[472]
Originally by: Sprzedawczyk
HOW ABOUT YOU FIRE THE DEV(S) RESPONSIBLE WITH THIS TROLL OF AN IDEA?
./signed.
I whant this dev fired!
|
Olli
Seraphin Technologies Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:52:00 -
[473]
When i want to fly a Logisticship i fly a Logisticship. I don¦t investing Months of skilltraining und Billions of Isk to fly a Mothership.
I don¦t like to sit for the rest of my Playtime at a Pos and delegate Fighters.
Whats Your next Idea? Need 5 People fly one Cruiser?
|
Marcus Druallis
Quantum Industries Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:52:00 -
[474]
This move would go against every single attempt to get carriers on the front line. It's like taking a step backwards. Also, what would happen if two people controlling your fighters died at the same time? 5 fighters return and 5 become garbage? --
Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed filesize of 24000 bytes - Devil ([email protected]) |
Tarron Sarek
Gallente Endica Enterprises
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:53:00 -
[475]
Originally by: Pallidum Treponema
Originally by: Vegeta
Insurance Motherships are fine as they are. I may be slightly biased because I fly one, but the recent nerfs which hit titans the hardest were not easy on mom pilots either. Notice the recent trends in mothership deaths.
Your problem is not with the usability of the ships, but the lack of penalty when they die. Notice how motherships and titans have slowly been withdrawn from direct 0.0 conflicts after the bubble changes (took some people longer to figure out than others). This is because the penalty for losing one is high.
Remove insurance from ships that die in 0.0. Remove insurance from ships that die while criminally flagged. Make capital ship losses matter and people won't use them so carelessly. I doubt you realize on how many levels this is beneficial for the game.
Insurance is the number one reason for inflation and by far Eve's biggest ISK well. Capital ships are not the problem here, insurance is.
This is, in fact, a very good point. Removing insurance will make 0.0 warfare much more interesting. There will, of course, be very significant impacts on the economy in eve, which NEEDS to be analyzed first <-- VERY important!
I second this. Additionally, 'insurance' or rather compensation for loss might instead come in the form of salvage. 40% of the ship's worth in salvage material instead of pure ISK payout. This wouldn't worsen inflation. Of course you mustn't have salvage and insurance, which requires a bit of thinking, but a simple change like: no insurance for cap ships and a bit less insurance payout for normal ships, yet a bit more salvage might do the trick. So in 0.0 the one who controls the battlefield afterwards will be able to replace some of his losses by salvage. However, that system could develop into 'winners only', which of course would be bad, might increase blobbing even more and so on. So one has to be careful with it.
_________________________________ - Balance is power, guard it well - |
DrWorm
Shiva Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:53:00 -
[476]
Originally by: Marcus Druallis Tbh, this is a very bad idea IMO. If this is the route that carriers and motherships are going down, I want a nerf on their ship cost as well. 500 million for the carriers please.
I would think that the cost should be closer to 300 if the damage is trully brought down to Dommie level, then the carrier becomes a jumping tank with a ship and corp hanger that need help to move around.
oh and the prereq skills should drop in price too.
|
DiveBlaster
Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:53:00 -
[477]
Dont forget that it takes almost 1 year to train for this kind of ships. I dedicated 2007 for Carrier training and you just pulled away my hopes. This is not a nerf its just not justified. PLayers pay a lot and u train and train. Capitals takes years to master. Its not a interceptor that u nerf taking 2 months of training. Think twice or u will start loose players faster than Fighters. //Dive (130 euro down the drain)
|
Mr Filth
x13
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:54:00 -
[478]
This could be a nice idea although it think there should be a big difference between a carrier and a MS. On top of this, i really think that you should make all super-capitals 0.0 only. Maybe you shouldnt even nerf the MS, but move it to 0.0.
|
Nyphur
Pillowsoft Total Comfort
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:55:00 -
[479]
Originally by: ArmyOfMe
This sums everything up surprisingly succinctly . The right picture really is worth a thousand words.
Eve-Tanking.com - We're sorry, something happened. |
Acacia Everto
Wings of Redemption Black Flag Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:56:00 -
[480]
This is only going to send carriers back to the POS. I sure as hell wouldn't field one if I couldn't at least use my option of fielding drones myself. I shouldn't need support in order to defend myself...as it is now, it certainly isn't a solopwnmobile, and I would never use it without support anyways. You're just forcing us to shirk off our fighters onto others at all times in order to use our damage.
And how about the Thanatos? Fighter bonus doesn't get translated when assigned, so its bonus is nigh on useless if this change goes through.
In short, this doesn't fix ANYTHING. It'll more than likely be counterproductive and make Carriers more and more unused. Signature My signature exceeds the 24000 byte limit allowed on the forums by 844 bytes, oh noes. |
|
Pallidum Treponema
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:56:00 -
[481]
There is another game that I play. This game is quite successful, and me and my boyfriend have spent literally thousands of dollars on it over the years.
Now, what this game company does is they provide a basic set of rules and things, then they add expansions. Each expansion adds a little bit to the game. Most of the time they are fairly balanced, but slowly but steadily the different sides grow a bit stronger. This may be because some units are a bit stronger than others, or that new cool rules are being thought up. The result is that units from an expansion that was made three years ago may be inferior to those of a more recent expansion.
For better or for worse, this keeps people interested in the game, and makes them want to buy new units and new expansions. It also makes the players go "Hey, I got this new, updated unit. This is so cool! I'm going to buy even more cool units!"
Now, imagine that this company would release an expansion where the units actually got WORSE *cough4thedchaoscough*, imagine how players would react then? Luckily, this company has other incentives for the players to keep playing, such as more detailed units that are cooler looking than before.
For eve? Unless I can sit down with a bunch of greenstuff and plasticard and convert the Trinity engine myself, I don't really think that applies. -- MC's Swedish squidshark
|
Snakebloke
Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:01:00 -
[482]
Originally by: DarQ Knight With all the people opposed to this, CCP also needs to remember, most capital pilots have 2 if not 3 accounts.
Also, every capital pilot might not be a forum-typed person and may not even post.
So Balance the numbers out here, if 25% of the people posting would quit the game over this. Thats potentially 50% of the population of the thread now due to multipal accounts.
Take into account the guys that just arent post'ers. Theres another 5% , multiply that thats 10% more.
So your are "potentially" gonna lose 60% of characters over 2 years old.
Now if you want to go even deeper... Think about some people that are logging in, dreaming of the day they can have a carrier, read this thread and think....What the hell am I working toward now? Is there any ship I really want to fly once I get my skills up.
If CCP wants to stay in business they need to back off capital ships for a while and come up with some more Constructive ways to make them BETTER not worse.
-DarQ
SIGNED ------------------------
|
Robet Katrix
Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:01:00 -
[483]
Originally by: Ahistaja
Originally by: Robet Katrix About 2-3 Months ago I was flying my carrier and i got caught.
we had a 15 man IAC gang coming through 49-u. (this was shortly after we had lost sedith's aeon) we only had about 7 in gang, 2 command ships a inty or two and something else. we used a claymore as bait figuring he could tank them until i exited warp and got remote reps on him.
Plan fell apart. i intiated warp early but claymore died as i locked him. the other 2 inties died as inties tend to do and it quickly became a chimera and an Eos vs. a 15 man gang. With only shield transfers i couldn't keep the Eos alive forever, he died after we had killed a phoon a rapier and something else because of his webs + my drones.
Now im trapped. 13 hostiles (more incoming from IAC territory) holding me in place a blasted caracal dampening me and no support anywheres close.
I have a good tank and they dont ahve much DPS so im survivng for the minute. i drop 12 t2 light drones (twice) but kill them with my own faction smartbombs. third time i managed to get them out and not kill them and they auto-aggro a cruiser. i wait a minute and figure hes probly tanking them. Recall them try mediums which auto aggro on an interceptor. recall them. I MANAGE TO LOCK a battlecruiser who gets in close. drop 3 web drones and 9 heavies. put my warp disruptor on him. they shoot my heavy drones down. i launch fighters. by this point hes out of warp disruptor range and all of a sudden i have lost all my fighters for 3 minutes while he takes them on a ride.
their support is continuing to grow.
i eventually get my fighters back and switch to sentries. sentries autoaggro something and pop it. im so happy ;p. they then shoot something else but i dont know what. it says their fighting so i let them do their thing.
they were attacking the damp caracal! yay. he warps out. im locking **** now. start shooting at their dictor with sentries he out-tracks them. try to switch. sentries are out of range. activate smartbombs and try to kill them so i can launch heavies and web drones. arazu just came in. im screwed. damp caracal is back now too.
wait 5 minutes under more fire tank is still holding. drop heavies and let them run loose.
10 minutes later friendly fleet comes to save me.
now.
with your changes what kind of defence do you think 5 drones would offer me vs. the 12 i had before?
Hello I'm from MC and refuting the claim of carriers being undue WTFPWNmobiles by pointing out that I was killed by a gang of 15 hostiles, while only taking out some of them.
By the way, while a number of people are saying a carrier should be able to take on half a dozen battleships solo for costing ~2 billion, it would only be fair if faction fitted, 2+ billion Machariels, Vindicators, CNRs and such could do the same. (And could go 1:1 against carriers).
First i didn't die.
Second. i killed like 3 ships at cost of about 7. My point was that carriers are NOT omgwtfwnmobiles. one dampening caracal shut me down. All it took. and moving from 12 to 5 drones dont change anything but make carriers More HELPLESS.
|
Han Horensii
Res Publica R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:01:00 -
[484]
Originally by: DarQ Knight With all the people opposed to this, CCP also needs to remember, most capital pilots have 2 if not 3 accounts.
Also, every capital pilot might not be a forum-typed person and may not even post.
So Balance the numbers out here, if 25% of the people posting would quit the game over this. Thats potentially 50% of the population of the thread now due to multipal accounts.
Take into account the guys that just arent post'ers. Theres another 5% , multiply that thats 10% more.
So your are "potentially" gonna lose 60% of characters over 2 years old.
Now if you want to go even deeper... Think about some people that are logging in, dreaming of the day they can have a carrier, read this thread and think....What the hell am I working toward now? Is there any ship I really want to fly once I get my skills up.
If CCP wants to stay in business they need to back off capital ships for a while and come up with some more Constructive ways to make them BETTER not worse.
-DarQ
signed...
/me ready to click on bye bye 3* 4.5 years account
|
Jakiri
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:02:00 -
[485]
Originally by: Ahistaja
By the way, while a number of people are saying a carrier should be able to take on half a dozen battleships solo for costing ~2 billion, it would only be fair if faction fitted, 2+ billion Machariels, Vindicators, CNRs and such could do the same. (And could go 1:1 against carriers).
Machs can take on multiple battleships :confused:
|
jokerb
Caldari THE INQUISITI0N
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:03:00 -
[486]
Ill conceived. unnecessary. Unwanted.
Please step away from this idea it is not welcome. Many people have spent YEARS, that is correct YEARS, training a carrier pilot. To only have you change them, their roles to which you have pigeon holed them into on a whim seems un-wise. Decide where you want carriers 2-3 years from now, if you don't know well then no need to tamper. Take into consideration that people have been training for expected ship role A. only to have Ship role Z forced upon them. They are neither interested in role z nor have trained for it. Create a tier 2 carrier if you want these changes implemented. Lets not arbitrarily change the ships that are out currently. They are not overpowered. Mom's die regularly now, and carriers die so often no one even blinks. If this is a lag issue well you need to A. state that as such B. Find other solutions then nerfing a class of ships that take such long investments of time and money. In closing I would like to remind CCP that many of its members have gone through this type of major change before and came here because of it(NGE anyone?) learn the lesson. The ships are not overpowered but this nerf is completely over-powered.
|
oniplE
NED-Clan R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:04:00 -
[487]
I guess Zulupark drew the short straw and got this horrible devblog pinned on him.
|
Spike 68
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:04:00 -
[488]
I see the idea, but there are some issues with it imo
1) carriers/moms have enough micromanaging to do trying to keep their gang mates alive and would rather not assign 4 groups of fighters after a target.
2) last I recall my thanatos does less dps than my bthron already.
3) the only way a mom is going insta-frag most ships is if its either really lagged out or its scrambled. so making it harder for a mom to do dmg isnt really going to change anything.
eh, thats all I could think of atm
|
Han Horensii
Res Publica R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:06:00 -
[489]
Originally by: jokerb Ill conceived. unnecessary. Unwanted.
Please step away from this idea it is not welcome. Many people have spent YEARS, that is correct YEARS, training a carrier pilot. To only have you change them, their roles to which you have pigeon holed them into on a whim seems un-wise. Decide where you want carriers 2-3 years from now, if you don't know well then no need to tamper. Take into consideration that people have been training for expected ship role A. only to have Ship role Z forced upon them. They are neither interested in role z nor have trained for it. Create a tier 2 carrier if you want these changes implemented. Lets not arbitrarily change the ships that are out currently. They are not overpowered. Mom's die regularly now, and carriers die so often no one even blinks. If this is a lag issue well you need to A. state that as such B. Find other solutions then nerfing a class of ships that take such long investments of time and money. In closing I would like to remind CCP that many of its members have gone through this type of major change before and came here because of it(NGE anyone?) learn the lesson. The ships are not overpowered but this nerf is completely over-powered.
NGE here too :) swg sucks now, if eve is going to some some of NGE type as well i guess most VETERAN players will simply quit like it happened for Sony.
Just think if this CCP is it worth a bad idea? loosing customers? just think of it...
|
Wodanonline
Pringles Inc. STYX.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:06:00 -
[490]
Edited by: Wodanonline on 21/10/2007 17:12:30 Edited by: Wodanonline on 21/10/2007 17:12:18 so basicly your saying we are making them good gang ships but if it gets under attack your f... well you know what i mean.
i think ccp should replace you sooner then later. if anything these capital ships need to get more rewards for the time you need to get them train them. not make them less efective.
oh and i forgot to mention with your method the only place you will ever see a carrier still is at a pos.
|
|
Deacon Ix
Ascendant Strategies Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:06:00 -
[491]
Not Impressed, I can see the reasoning behind it (sort of), you have shown carriers the stick too many times now, where's the carrot?
This change will be accetable IF
1) Give teh carriers 8 Hi slots 2) Be able to fit weapons for 'point defence' (lg turrets and cruise for example) * 3) Up the Tank or teh Cap recharge rate 4) Make them less prone to EWar (not immune) currently a Frigate with Sensor Damps can render a carrier ineffective (both offensivly and for support logistics) 5) Instead of the 5 Drone cap, possibly a 5 fighter cap but allow the rest of the quota to be met with Drones (EWar, Logistics and Combat Drones).
* what would be nice is a weapon with the DPS of a lg turret with better tracking and RoF but with a substantually reduced range (I envision the laying down of a wall of flack BSG style)
Originally by: Steini OFSI The most efficient way to get a dev response is to have the word beer somewhere in your thread.
|
Cown
Caldari Veto. Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:07:00 -
[492]
Good idea
|
boeses frettchen
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:07:00 -
[493]
Originally by: Vegeta Edited by: Vegeta on 21/10/2007 15:32:42
Absolute failure of a solution.
Bombs With bombs, you attempted to create an anti-blob tool. You did not succeed and nobody uses bombs... get back to work.
Insurance Motherships are fine as they are. I may be slightly biased because I fly one, but the recent nerfs which hit titans the hardest were not easy on mom pilots either. Notice the recent trends in mothership deaths.
Your problem is not with the usability of the ships, but the lack of penalty when they die. Notice how motherships and titans have slowly been withdrawn from direct 0.0 conflicts after the bubble changes (took some people longer to figure out than others). This is because the penalty for losing one is high.
Remove insurance from ships that die in 0.0. Remove insurance from ships that die while criminally flagged. Make capital ship losses matter and people won't use them so carelessly. I doubt you realize on how many levels this is beneficial for the game.
Insurance is the number one reason for inflation and by far Eve's biggest ISK well. Capital ships are not the problem here, insurance is.
Local Removing local will create fear of the unknown and people will be less confident to bring out their big ships. Show only those in (0.0) local who have recently spoken. This will also help your cloaking/logging NPCer problem.
Capital Lag Hordes of motherships and carriers, each with 10-20 fighters out, creates massive lag. Solve this using the same method you originally used for drones. Quality over quantity. Make fighters tougher and let us have less of them. Compensate by giving an overall increase in DPS and HP (many small > few big).
this! /signed
|
Han Horensii
Res Publica R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:09:00 -
[494]
Originally by: Spike 68 1) carriers/moms have enough micromanaging to do trying to keep their gang mates alive and would rather not assign 4 groups of fighters after a target.
another very good point
if you play (ever had played with a carrier in massive combat fleet) with delegating while FIGHT is going on, it is very very very difficult to get ppl attention to dot for fighters while fighting so most of the time when the first ppl you gave fighters died, most of your fighters sit idle at the pos
well i'm sure this would be damn fun ^^ having this forced now, sitting duck at pos with your carrier and yelling in gang chan for ppl who are still alive and fighting to get some fighters assigned..... meanwhile your fighters are still not fighting...
|
Shar'Tuk TheHated
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:09:00 -
[495]
Originally by: jokerb Ill conceived. unnecessary. Unwanted.
Please step away from this idea it is not welcome. Many people have spent YEARS, that is correct YEARS, training a carrier pilot. To only have you change them, their roles to which you have pigeon holed them into on a whim seems un-wise. Decide where you want carriers 2-3 years from now, if you don't know well then no need to tamper. Take into consideration that people have been training for expected ship role A. only to have Ship role Z forced upon them. They are neither interested in role z nor have trained for it. Create a tier 2 carrier if you want these changes implemented. Lets not arbitrarily change the ships that are out currently. They are not overpowered. Mom's die regularly now, and carriers die so often no one even blinks. If this is a lag issue well you need to A. state that as such B. Find other solutions then nerfing a class of ships that take such long investments of time and money. In closing I would like to remind CCP that many of its members have gone through this type of major change before and came here because of it(NGE anyone?) learn the lesson. The ships are not overpowered but this nerf is completely over-powered.
/signed
DRINK RUM It fights scurvy & boosts morale!
THE BEATINGS WILL CONTINUE UNTIL MORALE IMPROVES! |
Tarron Sarek
Gallente Endica Enterprises
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:09:00 -
[496]
Originally by: DarQ Knight So Balance the numbers out here, if 25% of the people posting would quit the game over this. (..)
Are people quitting over this potential change better than people quitting over other changes or things? Cap ship pilots are not and should not be treated as higher class citizens. So either we bash all 'I'll quitters' equally or we don't.
Just in case: EVE is a harsh world. It doesn't stop when you purchase a cap ship.
_________________________________ - Balance is power, guard it well - |
Dah' Khanid
Conisor Excavations Syndicate Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:10:00 -
[497]
Originally by: ArmyOfMe
This.
|
Blade Gunner
The Scope
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:10:00 -
[498]
I think many pilots may be missing the bigger picture here. Zulu must have been the one who sent the "We are sorry for your loss" mails. Now we enter the territory of two scenarios:
1. The dev team do not and did not want him/ her and have tasked him with a poison challis in the hope that he realises you can be hated more than in your previous role combined with being held responsible for the cancelled capital ships accounts that will surely follow the farce that will follow these changes if implemented.
2. It was Zulu's idea and he/ she clearly has never logged into tranq, engaged in any large scale territory battle, waited twenty minutes for your screen fighter deployment in a systemn with 700+ combatants fighting for victory. Only to improve matters by twisting the game mechanics to ensure caps and supercaps must be blobbed to serve any viable fighting contribution.
Either way an incredibly ill conceived idea, based upon a well concieved principal. Outstanding CCP the ***** suicide squad admits defeat in your presence.
To straight talk is free, smack talk can be very expensive. the choice is of course yours . |
Charly Quickfire
STK Scientific M. PIRE
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:10:00 -
[499]
Originally by: Pallidum Treponema what he said
and in addition: 1) despite it not being impossible (as shown recently) to kill a mothership even in low sec, if you want to address this issue, think of a nerf that only effects motherships when being in low sec and not also in 0.0 2) due to this being an onlinegame, that has lag (especially in big fights), disable fighter/drone auto-aggression
and in a more non-constructive way: This must be CCPs answer to the question: 'Hm, how can we **** on long term loyal customers, who invested alot of time to get isk and skills to fly capital ships?' btw, sofar I never used my carrier in such a way (fighters get assigned anyway) or am I near having a mothership. Voting for other people in this game, man how stupid I am...
|
Deacon Ix
Ascendant Strategies Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:13:00 -
[500]
CCP is Doing a Ratner?
Originally by: Steini OFSI The most efficient way to get a dev response is to have the word beer somewhere in your thread.
|
|
Alex Telinov
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:13:00 -
[501]
In real life a water-borne carrier can launch as many fighters as it needs to get a job done, and they provide the majority of the firepower in navies today. all those fighters get their orders directly from the carrier. The support ships that make up the battlegroup are mostly for refueling and protection from submarines. anyway my point is real carriers operate independently with their fighters, and this nerf is for the sake of balance.... just make fighters weaker or something
|
Han Horensii
Res Publica R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:13:00 -
[502]
Originally by: Blade Gunner I think many pilots may be missing the bigger picture here. Zulu must have been the one who sent the "We are sorry for your loss" mails. Now we enter the territory of two scenarios:
1. The dev team do not and did not want him/ her and have tasked him with a poison challis in the hope that he realises you can be hated more than in your previous role combined with being held responsible for the cancelled capital ships accounts that will surely follow the farce that will follow these changes if implemented.
2. It was Zulu's idea and he/ she clearly has never logged into tranq, engaged in any large scale territory battle, waited twenty minutes for your screen fighter deployment in a systemn with 700+ combatants fighting for victory. Only to improve matters by twisting the game mechanics to ensure caps and supercaps must be blobbed to serve any viable fighting contribution.
Either way an incredibly ill conceived idea, based upon a well concieved principal. Outstanding CCP the ***** suicide squad admits defeat in your presence.
lol Blade :) you always have the word ^^ yea cant say it better
|
Lorimer
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:13:00 -
[503]
I think the problem here is motherships not carrier
I have been watching my local pirates evolve their tactics over the last few months for dealing with carriers. My low sec home system sees a lot of capital ship traffic so I guess they want to take advantage :)
The fact is - 3 people in BS fitted out correctly can shoot down a carriers fighers, nos / neut its cap & then it just an expensive target..... Boom
I have watched this happen twice in the last few months
I am not seeing lone carriers as much of a threat to anyone apart from the stupid or those without friends :)
This issue here is more one of : motherships in low sec / imume to ecm and the forum warrier crying that causes, would it not be better to resolve that than hit carriers with the nerfbad ?
|
WYken
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:13:00 -
[504]
Great - thats just what i spent 2 months traing for Carrier, a beefed up guardian - without guns. Suggest development team goes back to doing nothing at all as this is what you do best. Was undecided about closing my account - but thx you saved me some time.
|
Vorce
Interstellar eXodus R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:14:00 -
[505]
I can't say I like these ideas. I can't see them being put to good use for the carrier pilots. I'm not gonna go in too deep in the discussion at this time. But I don't think the caps/supercaps needs more restrictions. And this nber deathbringer, I think that's more of a problem with MS in low sec and how low sec works.
I think you need to look a bit more at where the problems realy are, 'cause I don't think you're in the right track here. ---------- First! |
1Of9
Gallente The Circle STYX.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:16:00 -
[506]
WTS:
CAPITAL ALT with:
- 1.5years of skills (28mSP 100% dedicated to carrier/mom) - Full HighGrade SlaveSet - 3 Rare implants (total of 3b+ isk in implants) - Mothership (nyx) with: > 700+ Drones (including 50+ fighters) > Full officer fitted
50million buyout.
|
Sinder Ohm
Infinite Improbability Inc Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:16:00 -
[507]
The Titan nerf I can understand, that dictor bubbles affected super capitals was also needed but this
I mean comon guys you give us big expensive toys that take friggin ages to train for and then you turn around and nerf them into uslessness, so future use for MS and carriers according to CCP will be sitting at a POS delegating fighters
I recall you wanting us to use them more on the frontline, this change will cause the exact opposite.. way to go CCP
Originally by: Karanth Wimps play empire. Real men play in 0.0. Hardcore masochists live out in drone space.
|
Pallidum Treponema
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:24:00 -
[508]
Originally by: Ahistaja
By the way, while a number of people are saying a carrier should be able to take on half a dozen battleships solo for costing ~2 billion, it would only be fair if faction fitted, 2+ billion Machariels, Vindicators, CNRs and such could do the same. (And could go 1:1 against carriers).
Vindicators, you say? ;) http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=509369
And, with the proposed changes, a battleship would be able to go 1:1 against a carrier. No, it wouldn't be able to kill the carrier but neither would the carrier be able to kill the battleship.
-- MC's Swedish squidshark
|
Sarah McTeef
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:24:00 -
[509]
BOO, This is a crappy idea. You're going to turn carriers into nothing more than targets with large price-tags. If there are really too many fighters coming out of these ships, there has to be less drastic, and significantly less ******** ideas. |
Mr Filth
x13
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:25:00 -
[510]
Its just getting me warm and fuzzy inside to see all the "ill quit" and whiners.
There is this word that pirates always gets thrown into their faces.. ...what is it. Starts with an A ... right.. ADAPT !
|
|
1Of9
Gallente The Circle STYX.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:26:00 -
[511]
Edited by: 1Of9 on 21/10/2007 17:26:04
Originally by: Inturist
Or just refine it fo rminerals , u might get more isks
Cant refine the implants mate nor the skill time and money i spent on the account to train it
|
Layla
Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:26:00 -
[512]
I have spent years being and training for carrier and mothership pilot. This emasculation of all that training is the worst idea i have ever, ever heard from CCP. I am so angry at what you are suggesting that I just want to rant and rave at you.
- nerf Motherships out of low sec. Just ban them in the same way carriers and MS cant get to high sec. Keep them in 0.0 where they belong. - Leave carriers alone. They're fine the way they are.
|
Dr Borgia
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:26:00 -
[513]
Have you thought that just by changing the local you could achieve your goals of making capitals more dependent on the support fleet? If instead of reading every players name as he comes in system it just had several boxes which would light up-Corpmates in system -green box, allies in system blue box, friends in system, light blue box, neutrals in system yellow box, non friendly corps orange box, hostiles red box. The box's are already there, you'd just have to combine their effect as per overview and delete the names-making the local a lot more weildy, and necessitating the use of scouts and ships to support them while they find the enemy. This would help attacking fleets get into system. You could also extend the range of your weapons systems and allow the scouts to choose squadron targets for fleets not in visual range of each other. Which would help the defence. If you allowed the tactical interface show incoming shells, missiles drones, and fighters using arrows, this would give opposing scouts the direction in which too look for enemy. At the same time it shouldn't effect hive, or mission work much as your weapons would still be limited to the range of your ship lock. Especially if you 3 as the base squad number before you gain advantages as you do now I believe(fleet targeting a leadership skill?). This might give the partitioned battlefield of scouts line support reserves and logistics that you seem to want, but you might have to make pos guns more effective against small ships. A thought.
|
Grimpak
Gallente Trinity Nova KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:28:00 -
[514]
Originally by: 1Of9 WTS:
CAPITAL ALT with:
- 1.5years of skills (28mSP 100% dedicated to carrier/mom) - Full HighGrade SlaveSet - 3 Rare implants (total of 3b+ isk in implants) - Mothership (nyx) with: > 700+ Drones (including 50+ fighters) > Full officer fitted
50million buyout.
dude, sold.
---
planetary interaction idea! |
Cown
Caldari Veto. Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:28:00 -
[515]
Originally by: Mr Filth Its just getting me warm and fuzzy inside to see all the "ill quit" and whiners.
There is this word that pirates always gets thrown into their faces.. ...what is it. Starts with an A ... right.. ADAPT !
/SIGNED
|
Zenobite
The Black Fleet
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:29:00 -
[516]
What are ccp hoping to accomplish with this change? Apart from adding needless complication to combat and sticking two fingers up at players who have taken the time and effort to train for caps.
|
demotar
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:30:00 -
[517]
oh well , carrier now doesnt look like its going to be much use apart from hauling if you use it solo a lot of the time :(
At least cargohold expanders are cheap now , may aswel turn the thing into a hauler 100% and go play pew pew in something else :(
honour tanked carriers ftw..
|
Scilent Enigma
Minmatar Gerek Business Consortium
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:30:00 -
[518]
I'm sorry, this is a bad idea in my opinion. I'm glad it isn't on the drawing board yet because this would mean a total overhaul on the carriers role.
I was looking forward to being able to fly a carrier someday in the future, but if these changes come in to the game I wouldn't even bother because flying one wouldn't be useful nor provide any tangible advantage in any operation of any scale.
In large engagements their logistical side would be completely wasted on anything with a lesser tank than a capital because of the massive DPS and the lag, and the logistics would be wasted on the capitals as well since they wouldn't provide any significant advantage to be spoken of.
In medium engagements they would be rendered useless because they wouldn't be able to assign fighters fast enough for it to make any real difference, their logistical side might become useful in this scale but not enough for me to want to spend the 1.5billion to buy and fit it when I can get ten t2 fitted BS and join in on the fun instead for the same money.
In small engagements it would be wasted since the speed at which these engagements are done in, it would be over before the pilot has even had time to assign enough fighters to make a difference.
I'm sorry, this idea as far as I can see, only creates more trouble in the long run. The POS hugging, spider repping, fighter assigning carriers is a reality with this idea. It wouldn't even help reducing lag, the fighters would still be involved even though the carriers and moms are hugging a nearby POS.
|
Axel Stryder
Caldari Pringles Inc. STYX.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:32:00 -
[519]
Thanks CCP, you just answered my dillema and saved me 200+ days of training
And ehm, personal question ... are you on the Goons paylist or just sensitive to whining?
|
dookagalla
Eve University Ivy League
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:36:00 -
[520]
ok, my 2 cents on what I would do if i had to nerf carriers. its true that they are the battleship of 0.0 so they do require a nerf.. but not this one. my idea is work with the new bandwith thing.
have a carrier be able to go above the 5 fighters if the carrier has a support fleet ON GRID. it can then use the exess drone bandwith of the support fleet that isnt used by their own drones to be able to field above the 5 fighters without having the hassle and micromanagement of assigning. it would also FORCE carriers to be frontline if they want to be powerfull drone/fighter users.
when you say well when im out on my own i get nailed with only the ability to deploy 5 fighters welcome to Real life what would happan if a battleship (boat) shot at a carrier (boat) would the carrier survive prolly not if it didnt have support.
ofcourse the amount of fighters/drones is limited by the skill that the carrier pilot actualy has so even if the carrier gets enough bandwith to field 50 fighters he can only field as much as his skills allow.
maybe to get rid of fighters insta popping battleships introduce like said in other post here differnt types of fighters.
Signature Your signature exceeds the 24000 byte limit. -Darth Patches |
|
Manufakturka
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:38:00 -
[521]
Originally by: Jin Entres
If you want carriers' and motherships' role to be more support oriented, perhaps you should give them some incentives.
How about:
ò Remote resistance boosters ò Passive (titanesque) gang bonuses to gang members on grid / big bonuses to ganglinks ò Area shield ò Effective super defender missiles ò Remote ECM Burst that JAMS ò Capital neuts ò Ship tractor beams (!) ò Remote damage boosters
See? It's not that hard. The weak remote repairing with crippled mechanics we have now is nowhere near sufficient to justify the use of carriers and motherships on the battlefield for support purposes only. Nerf fighters and you nerf their usefulness completely. You have to substitute it with some real functions.
^^ || this
|
Nelius
Gallente Tenacious Danes Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:38:00 -
[522]
Edited by: Nelius on 21/10/2007 17:38:22 1. Ok, so you dont want capital vs. capital fights, but 200 support & 50 capitals vs. 200 support & 50 capitals. Fine with me, JUST FIX THE LAG! When thats done, go to next point. No 100 vs. 100 and not getting lag is not fixing it. 250 vs. 250 is the absolute minimum the system should be able to handle..
2. Make it so we can actually see what persons are interrested in getting those fighters, and make it so we can easily assign said fighters. And make it so it doesn't take 5 mins for the fighters to arive...
3. If you limit the carriers as they are now, the future is that they will be at a POS, there will not be any reason to get them on the front line. Change that, make it so that the carrier are usefull, and capable helping the fleet logisticly somehow. Since we cant rep our gang beacuse the locking time are WAY too long, the bonusses should probably be passive, and just be given to any gang mate in the grid, how and what, you figure it out...
4. Mmmm, you do know that you should be carefull right? People dont like sitting at a POS, it just aint fun, and with the amount os ISK spend on the skills & ships, especially on MS, people dont want to sit at a POS, they want to have FUN, FUN is the frontline...
5. Can i get a refund of both SP & ISK if you go through with this, i havent spend the last 4-5 months training fighter 5 and carriers 5 just to sit at a POS...
Ohh, and 21 pages of replys in less than 8 hours, this has got to be a new record...
LOL, in the time it took me to type the post, it was up to 22 pages...
|
Endometriosis
Arcana Imperii Ltd. Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:38:00 -
[523]
Makes you wonder if those rumors of MS/Sony Buying up eve is true. What is the point of fielding a mothership if it still has lower DPS then a battleship? CCP has clearly not thought this out very well and are just responding about complaints of fighters in large fleet battles still pwn'ing everything despite lag with a drastic unwanted or needed action. I 3 capital chars and personally this change would severely affect my gameplay.
Also what about the Thanatos/Nyx bonii (sp?). This change essentially makes them the worst carriers period. I think this guy needs to go back to Q/A and stay away from game design. If they do this with my capitals ill be selling them and finding something else to fly.
It seems to me like CCP is trying to escape trying to figure out how to fix lag. With this setup your going to increase the lag. For every carrier your gonna need atleast 2 other people in system controlling fighters. BRING ON THE BLOB CCP!!!!
Very disguntled Customer...
|
shinsushi
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:39:00 -
[524]
Edited by: shinsushi on 21/10/2007 17:40:56 \o/
Thank you CCP!
I look foward with interest to what other changes Zulupark *coughamarrcough* can come up with. I am however encouraged by this.
EDIT: I always thought carriers should have a bonus that allows them to fit more than one gang-link, like Fleet command ships do. No bonus to the gang-links, just more of them without sacrificing the mids for it.
|
Appalachia
Pringles Inc. STYX.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:39:00 -
[525]
Once again a ridiculous way to what you call; 'balance' things. Eve is turning into one big ball of rules and restrictions. Where is the freedom? A Mothership is a 15 billion worth ship. So yeah it may send all it's fighters to destroy a battleship in no time. I ain't even looking at the new Rev 3 things because from what I heard the weirdest things are going to be added.
|
Snakebloke
Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:39:00 -
[526]
Edited by: Snakebloke on 21/10/2007 17:40:01 Doing this will create MORE LAG! because people will get more players into a system to delegate fighters. it will not solve the problem but make it WORSE :S
and sinsushi...WTFH! why? its crappeh ------------------------
|
Vaedian GER
Omega Fleet Enterprises Executive Outcomes
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:39:00 -
[527]
Edited by: Vaedian GER on 21/10/2007 17:40:30
Originally by: ArmyOfMe
This picture sums it up perfectly.
You should also listen to Yaay about the economy of EVE because that's the real problem behind Capitals, POS Warfare and constant blobbing in 0.0. You, the Devs, seem to see the symptoms only. Finally hire some capable people to do the job.
|
Okkie2
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:40:00 -
[528]
I always thought the devs were trying to get Carriers into the front-lines. With this change they will turn into a POS-hugging logistics ship which does nothing except assigning fighters.
I just don't understand what's wrong with carriers atm, they can be pretty easily killed. If you fly them solo you will loose them to any competent squad you encounter. The only problem lies with MS's which are too difficult to kill in lowsec because they can't be scrambled.
A MS being able to kill a BS in 0.2 secs is no problem (btw if 20 fighters will kill it in 0.2 secs that's 0.8 secs for 5, not really a big change). It's a multi billion ship which is designed to kill BS's so it better be good at it. It should however be killable by a competent squad but changing fighters doesn't change anything about it.
|
Inturist
Nuclear Reactor Inc INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:41:00 -
[529]
Originally by: 1Of9 Edited by: 1Of9 on 21/10/2007 17:26:04
Originally by: Inturist
Or just refine it fo rminerals , u might get more isks
Cant refine the implants mate nor the skill time and money i spent on the account to train it
u right , atleast refining MS will get u abit more money , and about skill time , money u sepnded , meh , no one cares how i can see --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:41:00 -
[530]
Originally by: Cown
Originally by: Mr Filth Its just getting me warm and fuzzy inside to see all the "ill quit" and whiners.
There is this word that pirates always gets thrown into their faces.. ...what is it. Starts with an A ... right.. ADAPT !
/SIGNED
Most of this conversation revolves around 0.0 warfare, not pirates ganking people at the gates. Failure at reading comprehension 4TL for both of you.
Remove the ability to release fighters in low sec if its that much of a problem, or limit the fighters to 5 in low sec, but theres no need to nerf carriers in 0.0 if the problem is with low sec pirating.
|
|
Ocean Soul
Caldari Knights of Chaos
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:42:00 -
[531]
Armyofme's picture sums up this change perfectly, head in my hands. well nice to see CCP ahve thier alts in goons and not bob now.
But on a more serious point, every1 train for domis 5 months less training and 1/15th + the price. If you want to make the carriers mroe a support logistics role, thats cool. you want the carriers to rely on thier support fleet. Then give them bonus's and roles that better boost a fleet. Better gang mod bonus's or something? im sure you can think of something constructinve. Or i think on a more popular note send zulu away from the design department?
22+ pages kinda suggests its an unpopluar idea.
ocean
|
Baun
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:42:00 -
[532]
So can anyone at CCP tell me what the point of having a mothership in combat is at this point?
You have just turned the hard work of thousands of EVE players from fairly well balanced machines that can play a role in fleet combat while still being highly vulnerable into giant jump hauling logistics ships. I hope you are proud of yourselves and what you just did to your player base.
This is the most senseless change in the history of EVE.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Tetsujin
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:44:00 -
[533]
Also Zulupark the next time you use one of Bein Glorious's ideas I would appreciate it if you gave him atleast some sort of shout-out.
|
Batolemaeus
Caldari Free-Space-Ranger
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:44:00 -
[534]
Seomtimes i get the urge to pod my own alliancemates..
Seriously, anyone claiming eve-online has the most mature playerbase should see this thread..
|
Martin Law
Silver Star Federation
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:46:00 -
[535]
If this comes through im selling my carrier.
before they change the fighters or how they work please make them work PROPERLY first.
PvP wise fighters are an isk sink, if they get shot you'll never know untill you lose them off yer overview, dmg display never worked.
carriers are balanced just fine, just fix the damn fighters. get back to Q&A. Your signature is too large. Please see the Forum Rules for the limits - Serathu ([email protected]) |
Baun
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:48:00 -
[536]
Originally by: Antraxx Jeez...What a way to start ya Dev career eh? If this is due to the Low Sec MS thing...Just ban em' from low sec..
Obviously they would just have to ban the launching of fighters in low sec to solve that problem.
They cannot ban MS from low sec as that would effectively trap them in the part of 0.0 where they currently reside.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
RtoZ
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:49:00 -
[537]
I haven't read the replies in this thread but I have read the blog. Here is my opinion:
CCP gamebalance squads do not have a clue what they are doing. Sorry, you just don't. You leave stupid mechanics like gank insurance in the game and then you come and decide to randomly nerf items which players have spent around 6 months skilling for. You have no idea what your priorities should be and just go around tweaking things randomly.
Carriers are hugely expensive. Carriers take around 6 months to skill for decently. Carriers are slow as freighters. Their only redeeming factor is the drone control ability and you want to take that away? You're telling me I spent half a year training for a ship, which I intended to employ in a way compatible with its description, and now suddenly it is something else? And all for this ******** fleet based game design which is totally impratical with the current server reliability and performance? Oh go take a hike.
Carriers are not broken. Motherships are not broken. If you can't take them down you can fly around them. CCP needs to pick a game model and stick to it. I am sick of this crap. Every single major skill train I have done has come to face to face with a CCP nerf, first cruise missiles (t2 stat nerf making them useless) and a full month of wasted skills, now carrier nerf and near 6 months of mostly wasted skills because there will now be a jumpfreighter which does pratically all the "new" carrier is good for? Sorry ccp, but you're screwing over your playerbase by leaving ******** game mechanics and then "fixing" what dosen't need fixing.
Carriers as they are now are fine. Motherships as they are now are fine (if a bit hard to kill in lowsec, if anything that is the only *slight* tweak needed). Do not go ******** on us and make a stupid nerf which turns my carrier into nothing more than a huge waste of my time.
Seriously, this is bad enough as to make a lot of people leave the game in disgust, realising that ccp gamebalance dosen't have a clue. THERE IS MORE TO THIS FUKCING GAME THAN FLEET MECHANICS.
|
Crimson11
Legacy State
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:50:00 -
[538]
As far as I am concerned carriers should be on the front lines. 95% of carrier fighters assign their fighters anyways as they can't lock **** because of time it takes because they are dampened to hell. I have no problem with this, I don't even own a mothership, but to then say a 30 billion dollar ship canÆt even kill a battleship in a reasonable amount of time because it can only deploy on its own 5 fighters, thatÆs utter bull****. Why donÆt you guys just get rid of carriers all together? Especially motherships. You nerfed their ability to escape, which I believe most people would agree with, but now your going to make them sitting ducks? They canÆt even defend themselves if you do this! Even for the big alliances, IÆd find it hard for them to field massive gangs to support there motherships and their carriers! Not to mention the amount of lag this would gather and donÆt tell me lag doesnÆt exist either, it does. But to sum it all up, this is another one of those "Great" Dev idea's who has no clue to life, and to how much time and effort goes into building/training for carriers and motherships. Essentially youÆre making every single Carrier and Motherships time that they spent training, ratting, buying, and gathering all the materials to build these ships, an utter waste of time. Thank you CCP! GOOD GOING YOU IDIOTS!
Sincerely
Crimson11
|
Morning Mist
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:51:00 -
[539]
Hey mouthbreathers, Goons don't want this change. Stop saying we do.
|
Mr prapo
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:51:00 -
[540]
WEll.. My main has been in the game for a long time.
I just used some 6 months skilling for fighter5, capibration 5 and carrier 5.
Are you guys nuts?
CCP: Say goodbye to my 5 accounts, if you nerf something i used 1.5y to skill for.
|
|
R0ger Wilco
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:51:00 -
[541]
this is with out a doubt the stupidist change in the history of stupid changes.
and yeah I fully agree CCP just did a Ratner
|
The Ventrue
Ventrue Holdings
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:52:00 -
[542]
Did you hire people from Sony who were responsible for SWG's failure? |
Pyro NL
Pegasus Mining and Securities R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:53:00 -
[543]
omg dont do that crap
______________________________________________
Pyro is the Name Burning is my Game |
Scorched Evil
The Silent Rage M. PIRE
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:53:00 -
[544]
wow, great first post. rather than actually fixing any problems in the game that might actually have a positive effect on 0.0 pvp, you go and try to fix something that isnt broken.
I guess this really isnÆt anything new though, the CCP road construction crew has been at this for years. Rather than actually implement changes that provide a positive result in the pvp sector, they see fit to introduce more and more complexity to a game that already has a steep enough learning curve. Rather than fix real world problems such as lag, cheating, isk sellers or the like, they would much rather offer us more time sinks and effectively screw over their long time customers.
You guys need to take a serious look at your business ideas here. Whatever it is you're trying to accomplish with eve from a design standpoint is beyond me.
Our ships are getting slower, less agile, less powerfull. I still donÆt understand how the eve world, being a space and technology based game, is degenerating in its advancement. You would assume we'd be getting smarter, that all races would be inventing new ways to overcome the enemy.
In the real world when a country creates a new weapon that overpowers the enemy 10 fold, they will obviously nerf it to keep balance. They wouldnt actually get to the drawing boards and create their own that can compete. I can see where you guys are going though. Really.
CYVOK > All you station jockies better get out their and start killing these idiots
|
Han Horensii
Res Publica R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:54:00 -
[545]
this thread is soon gonna burn to hell ^^
hopefully it is just a dev blog yet and not posted on the forums
|
Carniflex
Caldari Fallout Research Fallout Project
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:54:00 -
[546]
Is this blog real ? Did it actually go thru proper channels before it ended posted here ?
To be more constructive on assumption that this devblog is real I would like to point out that this is not very good idea. It will change the way entire shipclass operates in a very serious way.
It is true that there might be some balance issues with carriers and motherships. I can't comment on that myself as I don't fly the capital ships myself. However, solutions that need excsessive micromanagement to be as effective as before change are not too shiny for pilots involved in it.
There has been many solutions that seem a lot better on previous pages (I have reached page 10 when I'm typing this). Now I do not have acsess to your long term plans, but ideas posted in devblog itself seem to be somewhat ... hasty. I'm sure it's possible to do better than that by taking some more time to think about those things. As solutions I would have pointed out are already covered on previous pages by earlier posters then I'll skip the ideas part and just ask you politely to reconsider your options in this 'balance' issue.
|
Molly Neuro
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:55:00 -
[547]
Originally by: Martin Law If this comes through im selling my carrier.
good luck finding someone stupid enough to buy it ..........
|
Baun
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:55:00 -
[548]
Quote:
But seriously, the reason we want to implement something like this is that we feel that capital ships are being used way too much as better-than-battleships-at-killing-stuff ships, when we in fact think that they should be used more as the-ships-that-keep-other-ships-alive-and-provide-them-with-additional-firepower ships. Did that make sense? Probably not, but anyway, we hope you get the gist the direction we want to move them in and the way we see that happening.
Zulu, this is, at best, a laughable stated motivation for the change.
No one in the entire game will spend 15billion isk + years of training + officer fitting + pirate implants on a logistics ship. It makes much more sense to buy yourself an infinite supply of battleships and heavy armor repair drones.
If you make this change you will NEVER see a mothership fight in grid again because of its enormous cost, ease of death, low firepower and the fact that its logistics capabilities are most the same as a carrier.
If you make this change you will NEVER see a carrier fight in grid unless its in triage in the attempt to save a titan. No one will spend 1 billion isk on an armor repair ship because less than that money would be required to pay for the number of ships the carrier is likely to save in fleet battle over its entire life.
You have just eliminated two ship classes from the game and completely slapped an enormous part of your user-base in the face. If this was your intent, then great job. If this was not your intent, then you should be reconsidering this.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Cur
Dawn of a new Empire Pure.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:56:00 -
[549]
Capitals+nanoships online would be more accurate. I believe that carriers and motherships kill non-capitals too easily and this aspect of those ships should be nerfed. However, I don't like the idea of requiring other pilots just to use the full abilities of a ship.
Perhaps limiting these ships to fighter drones only and decreasing fighter speed/tracking would be enough to prevent fleets of drone capitals becoming the norm.
"What is best in life?" "To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women." |
Le Skunk
Low Sec Liberators
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:11:00 -
[550]
Edited by: Le Skunk on 21/10/2007 18:14:23 Edited by: Le Skunk on 21/10/2007 18:13:27
Originally by: Larole Low sec mother ships have and will continued to be killed with nos nutrulizing battle ships. same as in 0.0.
If
MOM pilot is prepared to sit on a gate for several weeks smartbmobing without an emergancy cyno and ignore attempts to catch him
and
MOM pilot is not running scouts
and
A corp with a lot of players spend several weeks planning and organising a gank.
and
Said Corp brings in a bunch of their own nigh on invincible low sec MOMS to help kill it
Then yes - once in a blue moon a MOM will die.
The proposed drone nerf is a little bit ridiculous granted, but MOMs in lowsec are monstrously overpowered and the DEVS are right to look at them. Banning them from lowsec is the OBVIOUS and much cried out for option. Its simple and efficent.
Leave carriers alone though. As much as I hate the idiots who jump them in to gank a frigate - They can and dodie in low sec.
Also to all you dummy spitting community member threatening to quit now something effecting you. I remind you of all the previous ludicrous Nerfs you sat silent on and say HA!
SKUNK
|
|
Sephron Kintaka
Genbuku. Daisho Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:12:00 -
[551]
I'm afraid I have to side against this as well. Capital and Supercapital pilots, as well as their alliances, spend A LOT of money on their ships. And what they get in return is the ability to use as many fighters and drones as they've trained so hard to use. If that is taken away, these capitals will be turned into little more than Domis with way too many hitpoints. If you look at the statistics, people have been coming up with more and more creative ways of killing capitals and supercapitals (e.g. MS killed in lowsec). Motherships are not the uber deathbringer, but they are the uber logisticsbringer. They still rely very much on their support so long as their in 0.0. Now, low sec is a whole 'nother story. The only imbalance I see is when a MS sits on a gate in low sec with smartbombs running.
That's my two cents. Hope it was constructive. :) |
Happy Trader
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:13:00 -
[552]
I can see a tendence of stupid changes lately. The anti blob changes with cyno jammers were a big wtf experience. The bombers as anti blob warfare tool get 8 out of 10 at the funny scale too. But this is definatly the best so far. you devs got my respect. If you go crazy and ruin something then ruin it for good!
|
Wikka
Sub-Genius inc
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:13:00 -
[553]
Edited by: Wikka on 21/10/2007 18:15:01 heres one hopefuly not a nerf too far
Give all drones a launch rate !
Thus an established carrier can use all its drones but a newly arriving carrier would have to build its swarm up. Thus stopping the insta(ish) gank people complain of.
Alongside the differing drone launch speeds; Differing drone boats would have differing launch rates providing a little more variance to the system and give the pilot launching a tactical decision of 'do I launch a quick wave of light drones or can i launch fighters in time to be effective.
Additionaly this would help to prevent lag spikes caused by mass fighter deployment. Provide another skill for the drone boat pilots to accomplish and oppertunity for some extra useful rigs or modules to be added.
Thus the issue is solved without a major nerf making carriers useless.....
|
Vuk Lau
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:13:00 -
[554]
The most stupid change ever. Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed filesize of 24000 bytes -Shufo ([email protected]) |
agent apple
Applied Eugenics Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:15:00 -
[555]
Carriers are fine, if you think carriers are solo pwnmobiles please cyno your carrier into space uncloaked and away from a station or pos and Fraps for one hour.
Motherships are overnerfed already though they should be able to be scrambled in low sec, wrong nerf for the wrong problem.
5 fighters with skills/DCU's affecting damage instead of number controlled would be fine.
Perhaps you made an oversight when looking at these ships as they currently do the DPS of two battleships (im being generous here) they also die in less than 2m of exchanged fire when found.
No nerfbat but please return the ***** pipe.
|
Blitter
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:18:00 -
[556]
That's the worst idea I think I've heard coming from CCP in a while.
It does nothing to fix lag, while it:
1) makes a carrier/ms pilot's job assigning drones an absolute pain in the ass. 2) makes repair drones and other logistics drones useless 3) leaves these expensive ships virtually defenseless.
Please go back to the drawing board on this one.
|
RazorCRO
Caldari The Arrow Project Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:19:00 -
[557]
I never really post things around here. But this one i just cant pass. It's not that i think anyone will really care what i think about this topci, it just to take it off my chest..
Yes....carriers and Motherships do need to be changed. Is this good way? No. This is worst change CCP every proposed.
If i spend 6 months training for a ship, and than spend few bils on ship and equipment, i DO WANNA WTFPWN battleship! It's friggin CARRIER!!! Do you even know how real carrier looks like and what does it do?
I'm so happy i never really started training carriers, and if this change comes trough, i never will. No big deal for me. But tose guys that spend months and months for training and than ****load of ISK for carriers/equipment/motherships....wtf will they do? I guess just close accounts and start plain wow or something...
Oh yeah. If you go trough with this changes, i guess it's fair that you remove name Carrier (couse they wont be carriers anymore) and rename em to drone logistic ship or sonmething like that. Low down skill requirements, and ISK price and everyone will be happy...
With this changes Carrier couldt kill anything solo...it's just stupid and without of any logic.
And CCP, pls....give back old job to Zulupark and hire someone else to work on this kind of stuff.
|
MastaRob
Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:21:00 -
[558]
/signed on getting MS out of low sec
But re-iterate whats been said a thousand times now, worst nerf I have heard aired since I started playing
|
Sinner aint'no'Saint
Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:24:00 -
[559]
Sorry, someone actually paid you to come up with this idea? This is atrocious. "hey guys i figured it out!!!! lets send a 40b isk ship out with absolutely no defenses so that a single dictor can pin it down and slowly kill off its light drones 5 at a time while waiting for backup to arrive to pop said 40b isk sink!!!" I really hope u got a promotion for that.
This is completely impractical and incredibly lame. Carriers and Moms sole purpose in game is front line logistics and fighter support. Sure, a mom can drop a single BS pretty fast once its locked and pinned down but tell me how making a single bs able to tank a mom is going to help at all, because effectively You've left moms hanging, like u did with titans. What are the advantages to being vet players again? So people can sit at a POS and look at really pretty scenery? thanks for nothing....
|
Cosmo Raata
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:24:00 -
[560]
If its lag you are worried about CCP then reduce the amount of drones & inversely increase damage & hitpoints to compensate it.
e.g. Motherships can control 10 max, carriers 5 but the damage/hit points is equivalent to 20 & 10. Easy fix.
If this is about difficulty to kill in fleets, then nerf remote repping to ensure easier deaths.
e.g. Motherships retain ability to use Capital Reps, Carriers do not.
There are also tons of other things to do to make Motherships more attractive/better, which is what people have been asking for all along.
e.g. Capital Neuts, Capital Smartbombs, etc... We need more Cowbell Baby!!
So, boost the motherships, nerf the carriers, but dont take away the damage.
Don't Ban me for my Love of Amarr! |
|
Snaut
Minmatar Beach Boys YouWhat
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:24:00 -
[561]
Edited by: Snaut on 21/10/2007 18:25:28 CCP this time you've gone to far.
The sickest nerf idea I've ever seen in my 4 years of playing eve
Its not a nerf its a ROLLBACK
If I wished to have a support ship I would have skilled one in 4-5 weeks ... IMHO most people wanted a carrier because of its solo combat and tanking abilities.
If you think its a good idea to completely change the abilities if a ship class which needs 6-12 months skilltime you are wrong.
IT IS TOO LATE FOR SUCH CHANGES
Just listen to the comunity.
Your turn CCP
|
Kirex
Vale Heavy Industries Molotov Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:25:00 -
[562]
WHAT THE ****?!
|
John MacCoy
Amarr Arcana Imperii Ltd. Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:26:00 -
[563]
Edited by: John MacCoy on 21/10/2007 18:27:58 No. Just... no.
Instead of coming up with a MAJOR nerf to the carrier why not bring out something to counter it with.
Cap ships are becoming the new battleships these days so why no just bring out the capital version of a battleship.
Juggernaughts: A large capital ship with 6-8 Capital turret/missile slots. Instead of giving it a siege mode give it a damage bonus per level. Nothing like dreadnaught of course but enough so a few of them together can take out a carrier.
See. You spent alot of time and money coming up with a comepletely terrible idea than absolutely no one like and it took me 5 seconds to come up with something better.
Your move CCP.
|
|
CCP Zulupark
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:28:00 -
[564]
Thanks for your input guys, there's some interesting points here. We are of course taking all your comments seriously into consideration and will reflect upon it over the next days. We will keep you up to date of our findings, now go enjoy your Sunday night slaughter.
|
|
lust slave
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:28:00 -
[565]
This is typical. You spend months if not years training for a ship and the correct skills that are needed because you like the way it fights and then it gets changed. How many more ships are going to be nerfed? Is a carrier an all mighty doomstick? A BC can tank 10 fighters for several minutes at a time. What is a cap ship that can't use it full potential? And a mothership pilot that can only use 5 of his fighters at a time? Dear god what's next? Should we limit the amount of missles a raven can have in flight at one time? If anything the carrier is underpowered for the cost and time invested.
But what they hey lets nerf some more.
|
John MacCoy
Amarr Arcana Imperii Ltd. Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:30:00 -
[566]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark Thanks for your input guys, there's some interesting points here. We are of course taking all your comments seriously into consideration and will reflect upon it over the next days. We will keep you up to date of our findings, now go enjoy your Sunday night slaughter.
I hope you do. I think alot of people wil be very annoyed it you just go "Screw them, we're doing it anyways."
|
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:30:00 -
[567]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark Thanks for your input guys, there's some interesting points here. We are of course taking all your comments seriously into consideration and will reflect upon it over the next days. We will keep you up to date of our findings, now go enjoy your Sunday night slaughter.
I hope this translates to "perhaps we have not thought this all the way through and though there may be issues with a few uses of motherships in low sec, we need to address that problem rather then broad stroke nerf the entire class all together"
|
Inturist
Nuclear Reactor Inc INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:32:00 -
[568]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark Thanks for your input guys, there's some interesting points here. We are of course taking all your comments seriously into consideration and will reflect upon it over the next days. We will keep you up to date of our findings, now go enjoy your Sunday night slaughter.
Yay , we might be able to use 6 drones instead of 5 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
CarboniC
Gallente lOGISTICS INC
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:32:00 -
[569]
Hi Dont do this! A Mothership should be a powerful ship and it should be able to deliver lots of damage. Cutting down its controlable fighters is not the way forward. It a super capital and should remain so, players work very hard to obtain this type of ship, it must remain special!!
If you were to use this balance solution it will render this ship weak, market prices will fall rapidly and takes away the special element about owning a super capital.
If need be ban them from low sec or prevent them from using drones / fighters in low sec. Oh BTW how can the mass of a few battleships be able to knock an MS from its warp direction? The mass of a Mothership in relation to a battleship is massive, it does not make sense that a few BS can be able to do this - this needs sorting out.
CarboniC
Trader and hauler. Jack of all trades, master of many.
|
Pesadel0
Ordem dos Templarios Pax Atlantis
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:36:00 -
[570]
Edited by: Pesadel0 on 21/10/2007 18:35:43
Originally by: Vuk Lau The most stupid change ever.
This .
|
|
Je'hira Osiris
Minmatar Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:37:00 -
[571]
Once again CCP your sh1ting on you older dedicated players...
your taking players that have spen years training up multiple accounts then only using 1/2 the SP and signing that char off to a mothership at the cost off BILLOINS in game time and isk only for them then to sit at a POS while jo - one character - blogs fights and has all the fun..
i think this will cost you in alot of long time players all with more than 4 characters..
For what the ability for some newb to be able to stand up to a mothership... They should be able to kill hundereds of BS's they are worth 100's of bs's... What is wrong with you guys???
Respect can be found for your enemy.... its jus a case of how hard you wanna look...
|
Seriya
Caldari Perkone
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:37:00 -
[572]
Generally I like this. However:
- Make fighters considerably cheaper. and - Boost carrier / MS scan resolution. or - Allow carriers to assign Fighters, but not attack with them, in Triage mode.
Also I'm not sure whether it's necessary to stop them fielding 10 regular drones.
|
Sinner aint'no'Saint
Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:37:00 -
[573]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark Thanks for your input guys, there's some interesting points here. We are of course taking all your comments seriously into consideration and will reflect upon it over the next days. We will keep you up to date of our findings, now go enjoy your Sunday night slaughter.
yeah guys, play with your Motherships and carriers while they are still useful.
|
Quixess
Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:38:00 -
[574]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark Thanks for your input guys, there's some interesting points here. We are of course taking all your comments seriously into consideration and will reflect upon it over the next days. We will keep you up to date of our findings, now go enjoy your Sunday night slaughter.
Then try fixing things that are broken and leave things that work fine.
The only real issue in this thread is lowsec MS ganking.
|
Je'hira Osiris
Minmatar Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:41:00 -
[575]
Originally by: John MacCoy Edited by: John MacCoy on 21/10/2007 18:27:58 No. Just... no.
Instead of coming up with a MAJOR nerf to the carrier why not bring out something to counter it with.
Cap ships are becoming the new battleships these days so why no just bring out the capital version of a battleship.
Juggernaughts: A large capital ship with 6-8 Capital turret/missile slots. Instead of giving it a siege mode give it a damage bonus per level. Nothing like dreadnaught of course but enough so a few of them together can take out a carrier.
See. You spent alot of time and money coming up with a comepletely terrible idea than absolutely no one like and it took me 5 seconds to come up with something better.
Your move CCP.
Give john a job and quit!! Respect can be found for your enemy.... its jus a case of how hard you wanna look...
|
Sean Drake
Caldari Dirty Deeds Corp. Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:41:00 -
[576]
Ok before I say anything I need to get this out of the way
Hi, Iæm Zulupark and recently transferred from the Quality Assurance department to the Game Design team.
CCP have a QA dept What are they going to do with the other guy from QA
I could go on but putting ccp and QA in same post is allways going to get a chuckle and it's to easy
Anyway to the blog 1st things 1st I do not fly cap ships never have never will I saw this coming along time ago and decided not to bother training them I have however flown with and against them many times and do not beleive them to be that much in need of a nerf.
If this is yet another backhand way of trying to reduce lag then I can think of a number of other ways which would be much more practical and deserving of change.
The logistics ships you speak of in the blog are all ready in game ironicly enough called Logistics ships they do everything you mention and are much cheaper.
Hmmm so a well setup Cap/super cap can BBQ a solo Battleship err the problem with that is? If some nub came on the forums complaing that his Moa got wtfbbq by a Domi 1v1 what would he get told?
Seriously I think it maybe time to move on CCP have reached the point where they start to kill there own game in the name of getting new customers and appeasing the masses
|
Super Biatch
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:41:00 -
[577]
Originally by: Angry video game nerd I think it's a ****load of ****! Quote:
|
Xeliya
Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:42:00 -
[578]
Edited by: Xeliya on 21/10/2007 18:43:07
Adding a quick 2 cents here don't have much time but this is such a bad idea. Carriers and Mom's are fine, it is blobs of anything that are not.
If this happens I might as well sell my Carrier and Carrier pilot. Right now everything is fine because without a support fleet you are useless as each target will run away. I don't see where you get the Carriers can fly around without support theory from. Even the famous MC Mom/Carrier Bomb has support in there to tackle stuff.
Next forcing us to assign fighters will make us sit at POS's again. That is **** game play. If anything should change you should remove the ability to assign fighters and add the ability to keep you fighters from following people into warp.
|
Gyle
Caldari Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:42:00 -
[579]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark Thanks for your input guys, there's some interesting points here. We are of course taking all your comments seriously into consideration and will reflect upon it over the next days. We will keep you up to date of our findings, now go enjoy your Sunday night slaughter.
Dude You have to let us have our whine. There is a reason why everyone in this thread is saying NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO dont do it!!!!!
Personaly you do this and i quit and take 300 people with me. its a terrible idea. lets religate all carrier and mom pilots to the pos and let the noobs in frigs do all the fighting. great idea.
|
Mark Starkiller
D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:44:00 -
[580]
*mark Starkiller like his carrier how it is. And he trained so long for it.
*Mark Starkiller looks at his carrier and start to cry
|
|
Ztrain
Evolution Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:45:00 -
[581]
Edited by: Ztrain on 21/10/2007 18:46:12 Well the only saving grace here is that in about a year or just overs time it won't really matter what CCP does. In that time there will be at least 4 space MMOs of slightly different flavors ether in release or in late beta. One of which I know the dev's working on and it will be a very well thought out product. In fact devs from other companies do play EVE and are actively watching the Revelations expansions to see exactly what not to do.
The only reason why CCP is able to get away with this lack of ability is because of the current MMOs lack of sci-fi options in MMOs. Don't worry though rest assured soon if you don't like what these twits think up a superior game will be just a double click away.
Z CCP (Producers of Slide Show Online) takin the fun out of EVE, one patch at a time. |
Brungar
Caldari Adeptus Illuminati Aegis Authentica Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:45:00 -
[582]
Thanks. Spent a year training up for carriers, only to see them nerfed into oblivion by some clueless nerfbat?
Thanks, again. Can I get a refund for the second account I got for this express purpose, for a year? 12*15$=300$. Please transfer to my bank account.
Oh, do you realise that where there USED to be a reason to take carriers to the firing line (and risk losing them), this turns carriers into boring ****s that only hug the POS and delegate their fighters. Next time please think first?
Best regards,
Brungar
"War is a continuation of commerce by other means" - Unknown Caldari philosopher
|
Galldar
The Dragon Consortium Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:47:00 -
[583]
Nice...train up for a carrier/mom and CCP nerfs the entire offensive capability it has. Carriers die to fast as it is. Remember why you call it a "Carrier" Yes there are support ships involved. But the current servers can't handle the load for them anyways. CCP wants hugh capital fleet fights but nerfs nerfs them beyond use. I guess I'll stick with my inty. Why spend the money on a account for a carrier that can't even defend itself.2 years and 30mill skill points later....guess I'll sell off my useless carrier toon.
|
Gyle
Caldari Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:51:00 -
[584]
Originally by: Brungar Thanks. Spent a year training up for carriers, only to see them nerfed into oblivion by some clueless nerfbat?
Thanks, again. Can I get a refund for the second account I got for this express purpose, for a year? 12*15$=300$. Please transfer to my bank account.
Oh, do you realise that where there USED to be a reason to take carriers to the firing line (and risk losing them), this turns carriers into boring ****s that only hug the POS and delegate their fighters. Next time please think first?
Best regards,
Brungar
You wanna refund? in that case can ccp refund my 60 billion isk investment on my mother ship. In fact just take em out of the game and gice all mothership pilots60 bill and carrier pilots a bill. oh yeah and i have carrier five so can i have 3 months training on the skills of my choice also please
|
Reaver Con
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:51:00 -
[585]
I cannot agree with Drdnought more. IRL a carrier does not "assign" its very valuable fighters to other ships in its "support" fleet. A carrier controls the battle field, coordinates attacks, and most importantly, maintains complete control of ALL its fighters.
Perhaps its time for Eve to look at the real world to help solve some of its "balance" issues. For example, IRL to counter a fighter, a fleet implements a tighter anti-air warfare strategy.
Because in real life, 20 fighters can and will take out an unsupported Battleship in 0.2 sec.
|
Teufelhunden
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:53:00 -
[586]
Hey guys. after reading this topic carefully and considering these changes. i would have to say this is one of the worst ideas CCP has ever come up with. First i think the last nerf of Titans and MS has greatly change their ability to function in 0.0 space and we have see this with much many more MS/ Titan KMs. To nerf them this greatly would descourage any1 from wanting/ needing to fly one. the titan may still be usefull but the mother ship would pretty much become a 30bil POS. As a mother ship pilot myself, i could only say if i did see these changes come about i would sell it and use the isk for something much more useful, ie any other cap ship in the game. last i think this idea is more for the new players and not for the veterans who have been training for years for ships like these. i'm sure this idea sounds great for the pilots not in MS/carriers atm. but remember eventually u'll have the SP and the isk and want to get in one. what nerfs would u want on the ship if u were flying it?
|
Clavius XIV
Auctoritan Syndicate Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:54:00 -
[587]
I think this is a brilliant change that will guide us back to balanced fleets rather than carriers being the new battleships.
Back when carriers were first released they were frequently at POS and assigning fighters. Over time they were used more on the frontlines. Did a change in firepower cause them to be used on the frontlines more? NO.
Then why would a decrease in their solo firepower suddenly send them back to hugging the POS shields? I would argue that the main contributor to carriers being on the frontlines were defense(HP)combined with more carriers in use at the same time which allowed them to make good use of spider tanking.
In the current mechanics your are better off with carriers as the backbone of your fleet, with some misc support to kill off tacklers and provide warpins/tackle.
As for what the benefit of a MS is over a carrier, its the same as it always was.. EW immunity. No worries about getting damped and jammed, you can support your gang with impunity. MS are much better suited to small gangs since they can't be shut down by enemy EW ships. In a megablob yes, MS are only marginaly more useful.
The big balance issue with carriers/MS is not lag, nor is it low sec MS, nor carriers/MS being pwnmobiles. The big issue is their design encourages them to become the eventual backbone of fleets rather than playing a supporting role. One or two MS/Carrier are no big deal. 40 carriers with minimal other offensive support is the issue. An issue that will only get worse with time. The kind of folks who should be flying Carriers are the same sort of folks who like to fly logistics ships, not the types who like to fly BS.
If these changes do go through, the nyx/thanatos bonus will need to be fixed so it applies to assigned fighters though.
|
PauZotoh Zhaan
Teylas Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:55:00 -
[588]
Originally by: Le Skunk Edited by: Le Skunk on 21/10/2007 18:14:23 Edited by: Le Skunk on 21/10/2007 18:13:27
Originally by: Larole Low sec mother ships have and will continued to be killed with nos nutrulizing battle ships. same as in 0.0.
If
MOM pilot is prepared to sit on a gate for several weeks smartbmobing without an emergancy cyno and ignore attempts to catch him
and
MOM pilot is not running scouts
and
A corp with a lot of players spend several weeks planning and organising a gank.
and
Said Corp brings in a bunch of their own nigh on invincible low sec MOMS to help kill it
Then yes - once in a blue moon a MOM will die.
The proposed drone nerf is a little bit ridiculous granted, but MOMs in lowsec are monstrously overpowered and the DEVS are right to look at them. Banning them from lowsec is the OBVIOUS and much cried out for option. Its simple and efficent.
Leave carriers alone though. As much as I hate the idiots who jump them in to gank a frigate - They can and dodie in low sec.
Also to all you dummy spitting community member threatening to quit now something effecting you. I remind you of all the previous ludicrous Nerfs you sat silent on and say HA!
SKUNK
DUDE WTF you talking about? Then didnt need MS to kill MS actualy MS cant harm ms It sad ppl like you (who dont have any clue) are talking about MS, thats why CCP want to nerf them, and not only them but also carriers.
|
Akira Miyamoto
Caldari Paisti
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:57:00 -
[589]
Edited by: Akira Miyamoto on 21/10/2007 18:58:39 While this change has a well-found base logic, this is not the way to apply a fix.
With this change, a carrier has no way in hell to even minimally defend itself. And no, I'm not saying that a carrier (or mom) for that matter should be a solo pwnmobile. I don't really know that much about mom being one but I do know one thing about carriers. If you face a carrier and put few dampeners (or ecm it to hell) you WILL render it practically inert therefore forcing it to assign fighters to gang members that are not ecm'd to hell. Due to the existence of damps and ecm, I don't think carriers with more than 5 drones/fighters are really a problem as you can force the carrier to assign fighters to someone else.
By forcing a carrier/mothership pilot to micromanage fighters in the beginning of fight and during it you will make things utterly complex. Let's say if pilot A crashes, your fighters will not be doing anything for a few minutes as you might not know about the crash. After becoming aware of the situation you can assign the fighters to pilot B after finding 'pilot B', who is not using his own 5 drones already.
I'm most against at the idea of normal drone launch limitation. Why? Well you can't assign them and even if you could, the required micromanagement for normal drone assignments required would be huge. And there are many situations where a carrier can contribute to a fight with normal drones. Let's not forget that this is something that you can also counter by dampening the carrier thus making the carrier inert again.
Also, I think the current tools allow sufficient tools to repel "carrier tactics" in small gangs. In large fleets it will not matter with or without the change. I think carriers are very well balanced as they currently are because "solo carrier tactic" can be so easily destroyed. (Damps/ECM)
Concluding this (rant) I think this change (nerf) is the same as you presume a carrier to be damped and ecmed 24/7 (excluding logistics). Therefore, should this change go through, make all carriers immune to all kinds of electronic warfare (excluding warp disruption). Mkay?
edit: as I haven't had any real experience with motherships so I couldn't really comment about the changes concerning them.. _________________________________________________________
|
Corrillian
Caldari Ominous Corp
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:58:00 -
[590]
From a Risk Verses Reward point of view;
The Skills, training time, cost of the ship, Mods and fighters verses what can take down these ships does not make sense. Carrier - say 1.5 Bil with mods, fighters to what could kill it - say 500 mil in ships MS 30 Bil complete Verses what 1 Billion to kill it?
Will we get a refund for all the time in skills, Mods, Ship and fighter costs ?
If you are not prepared to do this, then do not change how it works after being out for so long.
The changes will increase lag, not help it.
|
|
Ronald Speirs
Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:59:00 -
[591]
ok..well being a rather dedicated capital pilot i can see why you want to do this....ok that might just be a lie, no i really cant. not a good idea ccp. when someone says carrier to me it means just that as in rl carriers deploy fighters/bombers ect...they dont have huge guns or missiles they rely on aircraft to defend itself and for offensive action too. taking that away makes the ship more useless. people invested a lot of time into making a character that can fly a capital now it seems that is getting taken away. boooo
if this is a must due to lag much like drones were a few years back then make the drone skills count for fighters and add a serious damage bonus(like 50% per level of carrier skill) to the fighters that are controlled by the carrier /mom. this might have been suggested before but, i cant be arsed to read 25 pages of thread.
|
Han Horensii
Res Publica R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:01:00 -
[592]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark Thanks for your input guys, there's some interesting points here. We are of course taking all your comments seriously into consideration and will reflect upon it over the next days. We will keep you up to date of our findings, now go enjoy your Sunday night slaughter.
I have no doubt the community will wait for your new proposals (maybe withdrawal of those ideas?) as it will hugely change the face of the game. starting from the business of caps and supercaps to its simple use.
(and i'm against it here)
|
Saituri
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:02:00 -
[593]
Originally by: Rusty PwnStar
Originally by: Saituri Welcome to Eve-online Sry BoB-online Ah sry here is the latest, Goon-online..
Where everything gets nerfed like goons want it, have a nice day
If you had half a brain cell, you would see they don't want this either.
It's not about a BoB/Goon thing, no one wants this change.
I seem to recall certain goonswarm petition about carriers, drones and lag, feel free to correct me if you can get your half brain cell from where the sun does not shine and search for it.
Eve was BoB-online when titans killed everything without risk, now its just goon-online since everything they whine about seem to get nerfed :)
|
RazorCRO
Caldari The Arrow Project Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:04:00 -
[594]
Ok, now when i got it off my chest, i can write something that might help...
Ok...motherships/carriers are too powerfull while solo. They are suppose to have some ships around em...cool...i agree!
Change you proposed would uttery destroy Carrier/mothership class, which is really not what you wanna do i guess.
If you cant get anything better than this, PLEASE look into the realy world warfare. We created carriers that can WTFPWN alot of things in REAL WORLD. But we allso created things that can WTFPWN carriers if they dont have some kind of support (for example well armed submarine or stealth bomber with guided missile).
So if you really wanna deal with carriers and moms, create something that can pwn em if they dont have support around em. Maybe Cruiser or Battleship class stealth bomber with darn big anty carrier torps which would pwn carriers/moms, but would be too slow to kill anything else.
Solution that you propose is worst anyone could ever think of and it would not only kill carriers and moms, but it would destroy players thats pend months and months on training and getting isk. Pls....dont destroy only good SF MMORPG out there...
|
Ziriam
Stupid People Always Need Killing Insurgency
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:04:00 -
[595]
IMO this is retarted!!! you guys remember when u coiuld have a moros and have max skillz and fly 30 drones!!! I dont care what you say or how you say it 30 drones do more damage than 5. NOT to metion the fact of the visual sight of 30 drones coming at you vers 5... SOO to cut the carriers in half on fighter and drone control is just plan stupid.!! WHY? well one takes forever to lock anyone, and in combate iam not gonna let some cetpor NUB kill my 5 (100m) fighters on some SB bs. Carriers are not (super ships) they can die very easly!! Support ships can kill a carrier really quick. NOW a mother ship is a different story, maby they should have a low cap outpout or somehting?? BUT in all cases you keep killing the mainstay of carrers and gallente alltoghter!! DRONES(gallente) are like missiles(caldari) Might as well make the amarr ships have less cap and see what happens! you already jacked the carriers ability to move items (logistics) NOW u want to kill how they fight and defend them selfs.... omg ccp what you doing to this game!! You want to improve this game *****FIX the bugs and lagg first!!***** Then put in more ships and items. I have been in game since beta and every time you have something good or steady you go and **** it up. or bypass the reall problems, such as bugs exploiters and Lagg and GM's or other ccp employees messing up this great game for there profit. I can rememebr when we had GNW fleet fights and NO lagg few buggs and no exploiters. BUT that is just my opinon. (stop messing with something that is not broke) |
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:05:00 -
[596]
Originally by: Xeliya Edited by: Xeliya on 21/10/2007 18:43:07
If anything should change you should remove the ability to assign fighters and add the ability to keep you fighters from following people into warp.
Yup, I brought this up in the (pretty much dead where no devs read anyway) ideas forum. Its kind of ironic that CCP removes the remote DD function (which was a good thing) but want to reduce carriers to ONLY remotely assign all of their firepower (well, a good majority anyway).
|
Icome4u
Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:06:00 -
[597]
CCP if you keep this nerfing bullsh*t EVE will end up like SWG. Almost no players and dead in the water.
Thats a word of warning for you CCP.
I say NO to this nerf/change and so does most of the player base.
So keep this up and you won't have anyone left in this game. Don't think it can happen? Look around at big impressive games that got to many big nerfs and now they are dead. Players can only take a certain amount of crap from Dev's, and you are just about to cross that line. ______
Originally by: Vyger If I lose connection while walking around a station will my avatar run off in a random direction and go hide in a corner?
|
Bellum Eternus
Gallente Blood Corsair's
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:08:00 -
[598]
Just to add my two bits (like there hasn't been enough 'feedback' already):
The dev team seems to have the perception that players think that Carriers need to be more of a logistics ship than a front line combat unit. This is incorrect, as 25 pages of spam has proven out.
We (I) don't have a problem with the firepower of a Carrier, or a MS for that matter. There is only one issue: lag due to the number of ships/drones on grid. All of CCPs efforts have been focused on the wrong thing here: players don't want the role/use of Carriers/MSs changed, we just don't like the lag associated with the fighter/drone clouds.
Additionally, we (I) don't like invulnerable MSs in low sec. Besides these two issues, no one really had/has a problem with the way MS/Carriers are used/operated. Why is this so difficult?
As for ideas, there are tons of them around the forums, and many players have already linked many threads as an example of what players want, and what we think are good/valid improvements.
That's pretty much it. I fly a carrier on one of my characters. If this change happens, it will be nothing more than a poor example of a jump freighter. No thanks. Bellum Eternus [Vid] Blood Corsairs - Day One [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y |
000Hunter000
Gallente Magners Marauders
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:08:00 -
[599]
any word on this from ccp yet? 25 pages and counting and i'm reluctant to go through it all to find it if it is there
ccp, read this thread, sofar as i can tell from the 25 pages only a handfull thinks the idea could work the rest just gave u a blatant no, i think this should clear up the matter don't u? remove this silly person and remove his devblog like it never happened and we can all go back to business at hand. CCP, let us pay the online shop with Direct Debit!!! Magners is now recruiting, evemail me or Dagazbo ingame.
|
Malachon Draco
eXceed Inc. INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:10:00 -
[600]
I think the change is a good one, but I would also agree that it hurts MS particularly bad. I would suggest 2 other changes that doesn't give them anymore ganking power, but solidifies their role as flagships.
1. Increase the ship maintance bay of a MS to 10m m3 (titan should probably be 25-50m m3 btw in that case) 2. Give each MS the bonuses of the fleet command ship of their race in terms of warfare links. Or even double them.
------------------------------------------------
|
|
Sidus Sarmiang
Viper Squad
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:10:00 -
[601]
Wow, I guess I can get rid of my carrier account now. Come to think of it, I have another account I was using to raise money to buy a mothership, so I guess I can get rid of that one now too.
I spent over a year and a half and billions of isk getting my carrier character to where he is. He has ADI 4, Carriers 5, and fighters 5, as well as all other supporting skills. I do about as much DPS as a gank fitted BS, my only advantage is I'm not limited by range, can jump (with support), and tank a lot better. The disadvantage is I have a huge bullseye painted on me and move like a dead whale. Tell me how that's overpowered and I'll tell you I'm finding a new game.
|
Ztrain
Evolution Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:10:00 -
[602]
Originally by: Icome4u CCP if you keep this nerfing bullsh*t EVE will end up like SWG. Almost no players and dead in the water.
Thats a word of warning for you CCP.
I say NO to this nerf/change and so does most of the player base.
So keep this up and you won't have anyone left in this game. Don't think it can happen? Look around at big impressive games that got to many big nerfs and now they are dead. Players can only take a certain amount of crap from Dev's, and you are just about to cross that line.
Yes there are a lot of people that will not even try a game just based on who the publisher or developer is. CCP is getting to that point. If this goes through it doesn't matter how good their game will look with the new engine. They will have crossed the time/investment vs. reward line. At that point it will be more rewarding to just not play a CCP game to not have to deal with their constant nurfs.
Ohh and good luck with Vampires.
Z CCP (Producers of Slide Show Online) takin the fun out of EVE, one patch at a time. |
Rusty PwnStar
Rampage Eternal Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:12:00 -
[603]
Originally by: Saituri ] I seem to recall certain goonswarm petition about carriers, drones and lag, feel free to correct me if you can get your half brain cell from where the sun does not shine and search for it.
Eve was BoB-online when titans killed everything without risk, now its just goon-online since everything they whine about seem to get nerfed :)
That thread was about lag and no one in that thread suggested this idea, which I might add doesn't fix lag.
You just came here to troll and prove my point, well done.
Regards Rusty |
Skraeling Shortbus
Caldari The Arrow Project Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:13:00 -
[604]
Glad I have not bothered training for a capital.
Love to the Assault Frigate! |
croakroach
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:17:00 -
[605]
oh my god its a carrier not a regular ship carriers are massive and carry tons of fighters that thing should be able to launch all drones and use them I see no real purpose except for nerfing a ship that otherwise is defenseless against other ships , in my opinion will make this ship totally uselss in actual defensive combat (after all you cant have a armada of BS all the time wiht it ) and anyways there are not millions of these things flying around ganking BS in 0.2 seconds as claimed , they are supposed to strike fear and not laughs , it should take good planing and power to take them down , but oh well I guess training for something else is a better idea now and feel sorry for those poor chaps that trained so hard to get one just in time for nerfing
|
oDDiTy V2
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:18:00 -
[606]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark Thanks for your input guys, there's some interesting points here. We are of course taking all your comments seriously into consideration and will reflect upon it over the next days. We will keep you up to date of our findings, now go enjoy your Sunday night slaughter.
Maybe it's time to cut the crap?
Theres nothing to reflect upon, this change is bull****. Can it.
|
Trass
Caldari DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:19:00 -
[607]
Originally by: CCP Wrangler Zulu is now working on balancing different elements of EVE and one of the first projects he gets to work on is the relationship between Supercapitals, Fighters and Drones. Be gentle on him, he's got a tough one!
Wrangler, for us (players) and zulu it will be better if you transfer him back to Quality Assurance department.
His proposition will kill this game, and you lose job. Players are tired and wont sustain such horrible stupid idea like capital nerf. Its only one man for god, you want risk future of this game for one man? Seriously man watch how many of us are against.
|
StratComm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:19:00 -
[608]
I'll add my name to the long list of people who think this is a colossally bad idea. I'd offer constructive criticism but this idea is so bad that I can't find anything constructive to say about it. It renders carriers all but completely useless in nearly all of their current capacities without providing any capabilities in return. The only thing (and I stress the only thing) that they would still be able to do effectively after the proposed change is assign from a safespot (high-risk) or POS (low-risk), both of which are done already for fleet-to-fleet combat. In return, we lose the ability to use normal drones completely as they'd be less effective than a t1 BS at that, we lose the ability to field firepower even remotely proportional to our ship's value in our own defense, and we lose any reason or ability to use a carrier in any role other than blob support. Combined, this makes it completely ineffective for smaller corps and alliances to even field carriers. I have not participated in lag warfare in a while, and even with the gang ops I deal with on a regular basis I find the prospect of having to assign my fighters intolerable. The genie is out of the bottle with capitals, and particularly carriers; they've already established plenty of roles outside of logistics and support and taking that away from players who have devoted a year or more of their game time to fielding one should be criminal.
The only way this could be redeemed is if the fighters under the carrier's direct control were equivalent in power to the 13-15 they field now (so 3x damage for carriers, 5x for motherships on top of current skills) while delegated fighters get no such bonus. That would offer incentive to delegate beyond what's there now, without mandating that it gets done. It still nerfs the droneswarm, which is a loss but it's not the deathblow of a fighternerf that the proposed changes are.
|
Vollaryn
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:20:00 -
[609]
Edited by: Vollaryn on 21/10/2007 19:25:16 This is the single worst idea I've EVER seen from CCP.
What about those of us that like to play solo? With only 5 fighters, you might as well just be using a battleship instead and save yourself about 1.5 billion ISK in the process.
Or how about people like myself that use web drones in concert with fighters in order to make them properly effective? Will we be able to launch and control 5 normal drones along with those 5 fighters we'd be able to use? (I highly doubt it.)
Will fighters still have an (approximate) 15m pricetag that we have to entrust to others?
Bottom line is that it took me approximately eight months of dedicated training time to get properly trained for my carrier, and these changes will make me never fly it again. If these changes go through, there had better be some sort of skillpoint refund for all the people who would no longer want to fly carriers.
|
Wesley Baird
Murder-Death-Kill
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:20:00 -
[610]
What motivated this idea?? Did a CCP player get BBQ'd by a MOM in low-sec, and decide to do a carebear rant??? OMFG we need to change this game!!?!?
Every faction in the game agrees this is a terrible idea...so where on earth did the idea come from???
|
|
Doc Lithius
Minmatar Fabulous Soulcatchers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:21:00 -
[611]
Edited by: Doc Lithius on 21/10/2007 19:22:38 *cough* guardian-vexor *cough* But yes, please try and find a way to limit the number of drones controlled by each person that doesn't produce bigger issues to the carrier ideals itself. But HEY! Make that drone bay bigger then since we want our friends to be our power wielders. If I'm trusting the guy on the other end not to lose my drone, that trust is out the window if I can't recall and reassign right quick... The weak run... The strong run fast... The smart stop & think: "Is this gonna kill me?"
You want God mode? Stop playing and be the game. |
Lanjar
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:21:00 -
[612]
guys at ccp please enploy people that have played the game of a bit and have worked for these ships,there is a lot of investment in building flying these ships skilling up and the time involved. to nerf this is not on at all. carriers are all to easy to kill atm as it is.
please dont for get the poor souls that have spend x bil isk to make these ships in the first place
dont do it
|
Virsalura
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:21:00 -
[613]
Why does it seem over the past year every single nerf to capitals has been the result of successful tactics deployed by BoB and the incessant whining of a player entity thereafter?!?
|
mechtech
Silver Snake Enterprise
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:21:00 -
[614]
First of all, this really messes up alot of people's skill training. CCP should be very restrictive with nerfs, because many people have been training for months for something that is about to get seriously nerfed.
On to the actual changes though. I think this is an ok change for carriers (although only fielding 5 drones is way too harsh). Motherships on the other hand shouldn't be toughed. They cost 20x more than a carrier, and the amount of fighters it can field is the main attraction to it. Limiting it to delegating 4x groups of 5x drones will simply not make it worth the cost, and really **** off the people who have trained for them, as well as the alliances that have put in 1000s if man hours to get them.
|
tropic112
Gallente The Circle STYX.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:23:00 -
[615]
NO NO NO
NOOOOOOO
|
Clerence Thomas
Gallente Black Lotus Heavy Industries Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:23:00 -
[616]
Unfortunately this is a broken idea. I can see where it comes from, and it's reasonable logic but it doesn't fit in with the way the player base operates. It will result in carriers being removed from combat service because they will have been nerfed to the point where they are simply jump haulers. -- "There are over 500 million fire arms in worldwide circulation. That is one fire arm for every twelve people on the planet. The only question is... How do we arm the other eleven?"
|
Gyle
Caldari Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:24:00 -
[617]
Originally by: RazorCRO Ok, now when i got it off my chest, i can write something that might help...
Ok...motherships/carriers are too powerfull while solo. They are suppose to have some ships around em...cool...i agree!
Change you proposed would uttery destroy Carrier/mothership class, which is really not what you wanna do i guess.
If you cant get anything better than this, PLEASE look into the realy world warfare. We created carriers that can WTFPWN alot of things in REAL WORLD. But we allso created things that can WTFPWN carriers if they dont have some kind of support (for example well armed submarine or stealth bomber with guided missile).
So if you really wanna deal with carriers and moms, create something that can pwn em if they dont have support around em. Maybe Cruiser or Battleship class stealth bomber with darn big anty carrier torps which would pwn carriers/moms, but would be too slow to kill anything else.
Solution that you propose is worst anyone could ever think of and it would not only kill carriers and moms, but it would destroy players thats pend months and months on training and getting isk. Pls....dont destroy only good SF MMORPG out there...
The problem with motherships is massivly overstated. in actual truth... there is no problem. CCP is fearful that they are becoming too common and as peeps move up the cap ladder its no one is gonna be flying BS any more. well guess what
Wrong.
its about what you come setup in. The other day KIA held two of our nyx at bay with a 30 man remote repping smart bombing BS gang. The fight went on for like 8-10 min and in that time only lost one abbadon and destryed 10 fighters. Please tell me How that makes them unbalanced with them being worth maybe tripple what the Bs fleet was worth. End of the line is peeps get upset when they dont know how to fly against moms. Had that incident been in 0.0 and not by an onlining pos and had they had a few dictors and some caps to lay on us. we could have lost two nyx.
So they arent the solopwnmobile everyone (who doesnt know how to fight against em) claims em to be. On top of this they are dropping like flies all over the galaxy. But ccp are worried about too many peeps getting in them. what can we do about that.
I know. lets make it so no one wants to fly em. that will solve everything!!!!!!
|
sinqlaison
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:25:00 -
[618]
Edited by: sinqlaison on 21/10/2007 19:25:51 Should God get help ?
Why do people play this game? Because they set themselves a goal to achieve, work hard to achieve it and fun in the mean time. Having a god-like power interfere with these plans can be quite frustrating.
It makes me wonder whether wonder whether God should consider alternative ways to consider making sweeping changes to the game?
Your attempt to elicit player input via these threads is already helpful. But if you want to optimize player game experience - which is in the financial interest of God - you might want to think how to think through changes, weigh their cons and pros and come to a decision.
In normal life we created two institutions for that: - a constitution that prevents infringement on basic rights of 'players', in this case, a set of laws that prevents rules changes that infringe these laws - a council elected by 'players' that - through open debate - choses the route of that the majority thinks is right
Eve is not a commercial game, its a universe woth real people. We get exasparated if we feel being ruled by bureaucrats. Let us reign!
|
Bein Glorious
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:25:00 -
[619]
So, uh, I kind of came up with this idea a few months ago (unless somebody else came up with the same idea and beat me to it), so I feel that I should weigh in on this.
At the time I came up with the idea partially to decrease fighter lag in a more elegant way than a fighter deflation (i.e. reducing the 15 fighters a carrier can use down to 5 fighters with more HP and damage as well) as change a couple other things, but I actually scrapped the idea after thinking about it for a while because I figured that a) too many people would hate it, b) it doesn't really do much to decrease lag all by itself, and c) if they fixed the lag in some other way, the carrier spam problem could work itself out anyway.
That said, it does do a couple things that you can't really deny:
1. It stops people from dropping ten carriers on roaming gank gangs (which is lame if you're on the receiving end but it's not a major problem) without support.
2. It hurts motherships in lowsec quite a bit, though if you could just scramble them, that would be just as good.
3. It does more-or-less force the need for support ships, which some would argue isn't an important enough deal for carriers/motherships right now.
But this change isn't just about nerfing carriers in combat or whatever, it's also about stopping MUDflation. At some point, CCP and some other people reached the conclusion that there are just too many carriers/motherships around to be good for the game. The only solution to that is, well, yeah, you kinda have to nerf something, because if you don't, people will just get more and more of them. But if you want to nerf something, look at what there is to work with here:
1. Remote reps - you can't really nerf this, since that's a major part of what carriers are supposed to do. They should be able to assist other ships.
2. Personal tank or capital hitpoints - you can't really nerf this, since that was kind of the point of the Rev 1.0 hitpoint buff. That, and if you really want to decrease the number of carriers in a fleet, this would kind of do the opposite, since you would need to have MORE carriers available for remote repping.
3. Fighters - They do a significant amount of damage but are pretty expensive, and they're the most directly involved with killing people. And they make lag.
Fighters are the choice that is the least likely to break the game or totally gimp carriers, given the alternatives.
After thinking about it for a while, I basically came to the conclusion that while something like the dev blog's idea could work, if they just fixed lag (which admittedly can't be that easy), the carrier spam problem should take care of itself. Yes, people will be able to bring out forty carriers and hardly any support and do fine at least for the first couple fights, but if their enemies continually kill tons and tons of fighters in each battle, it should produce an upkeep cost that the carrier-spammers won't want to commit to. No, money alone shouldn't be the limiting factor for balance, but judging by what I've seen, even the most unfathomably wealthy won't want to spend more and more money and take more time to produce and transport fighters. Carrier spamming should decrease given this model.
So to sum up, yes, I think this change - even if it's still just an idea right now, nothing final - could do some good. But on the other hand, I think that it is possible to get the same result if the lag gets fixed or at least reduced to the greatest capacity. Overall, I have mixed feelings about the idea, and I'm not totally sure that it's necessary.
That said, please don't forget to make fighters less laggy for Trinity, the lag is really pretty unbearable and honestly, a fix for that can't come soon enough. Also, it would be nice if some capital skills had their pre-reqs lowered. |
citizen amarr33sd3g4
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:26:00 -
[620]
Correct me if I'm wrong but as long as you have buddies that want the fighters assigned to them, nothing has changed.
Quote: We plan on changing the way fighters work, and have it so that you can still launch all the fighters you want (within limits of your ship/skills) but you can only directly control 5 of them at a time. That means that a carrier/mothership can launch 5 fighters, assign them to a gang mate, launch 5 more, assign them to another gang mate etc. etc.
|
|
Han Horensii
Res Publica R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:27:00 -
[621]
Originally by: 000Hunter000 any word on this from ccp yet? 25 pages and counting and i'm reluctant to go through it all to find it if it is there
ccp, read this thread, sofar as i can tell from the 25 pages only a handfull thinks the idea could work the rest just gave u a blatant no, i think this should clear up the matter don't u? remove this silly person and remove his devblog like it never happened and we can all go back to business at hand.
yes CCP replied here for those lazzy to find it ^^ :
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=618279&page=24#705
|
Kaaii
Caldari Omega Fleet Enterprises Executive Outcomes
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:28:00 -
[622]
I didn't want last year anyway.....
According to Oveur, existing LSAA's already anchored will stay there. kieron Director of Community Relations,
|
SpaceTrucker 3000
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:28:00 -
[623]
I love the change and it's a step in the right direction to steer Eve into something other than Capitals Online. To the crybabies in this thread, just saying that you will quit if this change goes through will impact CCP about 0.001%. So just accept it or propose alternatives, carriers need to be fixed. |
Le Skunk
Low Sec Liberators
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:29:00 -
[624]
Edited by: Le Skunk on 21/10/2007 19:30:09
Originally by: Sidus Sarmiang Wow, I guess I can get rid of my carrier account now. Come to think of it, I have another account I was using to raise money to buy a mothership, so I guess I can get rid of that one now too.
Your argument hold no water.
I spent over a year and a half and billions of isk getting my carrier character to where he is.
I (and others) spent billions of isk and months of work to get the Privateer alliance up and running and changing the face of the game.
We got nerfed specifically,arbitrarily and nigh on utterly. Not told to use a few less drones.
And do i moan about it? Do i continue to bring it up on the forums like an old bore? DO I!!!!!
If, when carriers were brought out, you were told they were goging to be able to carry multiple types of drones, have massive HP, be jump drive capable, be able to carry ships and good past gate camps, be able to sustain massive amounts of damage on a BS by repping it with capital sized reppers, and to use a new type of drone called a fighter that does 10 time drones damage, can be assigned to gang mates, follows people into warp, all for the isk cost of 10 BS would you have gone
IM LEAVING THE GAME.
No
So all you whiners should go eat cheese and lump it.
SKUNK
|
Kukki
Gallente ZiTek Deepspace Explorations Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:31:00 -
[625]
Ich realy like this one the most! "when we in fact think that they should be used more as the-ships-that-keep-other-ships-alive-and-provide-them-with-additional-firepower ships."
Keep other Ships alive with crappy 1500 hp repaired every 5 seconds? 3000 hp repaired with the Triage mod every 2.5 sec? For cap fights? Sry but I simply have to lol about that. Add a 0 so that the Capital Armor Repairer I repairs 15000 HP every 5 sec an they are realy usefull so called " the-ships-that-keep-other-ships-alive"
And make sure that the Cap Ships dont move when they are in Triage or Siege mode. When u reduce the max velocity of 100%, then be sure that no one can move a ship through bumping or whatever.
|
Akira Miyamoto
Caldari Paisti
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:32:00 -
[626]
Originally by: Bein Glorious
1. It stops people from dropping ten carriers on roaming gank gangs (which is lame if you're on the receiving end but it's not a major problem) without support.
I don't think this is a very valid point. Any roaming gang with a good fc can withdraw and escape such "drop" losing 1-2 bs at max and move on to another potential victims. Yeah it's lame but why shouldn't it be possible? Nothing prevents the US from "dropping" few carriers to the Persian Gulf. (Radical example, but as far as I know it's a valid one) _________________________________________________________
|
Aleria Angelis
Spartan Industrial Manufacturing SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:32:00 -
[627]
I have to ask: how are carriers solo pwnmobiles? Their fighters cant catch fast nano gangs which is really where PvP is headed at the moment despite the nano nerf, they can easily be jammed in which case assigning them to gang mates in fast frigates is already the best option. Their slow and vulnerable without support. I canÆt help thinking this change has motherships more in mind, if so the most oblivious and simple way to make them more vulnerable is to get rid of their EW immunity.
What the real problem here is super capitals in low sec, which are indeed far too overpowered, as many people have suggested before me just limit their use to 0.0, where these monstrosities belong.
I can totally understand peoples reaction to this, the Carrier takes over 1 year in skills to train for, even longer to fly effectively, its what almost every pilot aims for, and every time he flys it he risks 1.5 billion isk. This is a severe and futile nerf that isnÆt the answer to EVEs current capital problems, it also seems highly unrealistic from a RP point of view and reminds me a lot of the restricting type of game WOW subjects its players to.
|
Jordan Musgrat
Convergent Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:33:00 -
[628]
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?
I'd like to address your analogy since it's ridiculously horribly not in your favor. No carriers in RL never move without a blob, but could they? Yes, and they could kick the tar out of smaller conventional fleets. But eventually they would meet someone with tactics and would die. That's how EvE is right now. Horrible analogy.
The main thing to see here is you said in the OP you don't want caps to be uber BS killers...... Ummmmmmm, they're capitals, and a carrier only has 2x the firepower of a normal BS, I'm not seeing the problem here. The only thing they really have going for them is the tank, nerf that if you want more carriers to die. -----------
Primary is family values, secondary is 0.0... |
JcJet
Caldari RusAviaSpace Stella Polar
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:33:00 -
[629]
I not like it at all... This makes a carrier completely depend on fleet. That way if his corp mates is not around, is better sit on station, pos, ss or just get a BS... And what about PvE, lvl V missions?
|
Ztrain
Evolution Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:33:00 -
[630]
Originally by: Trass
Originally by: CCP Wrangler Zulu is now working on balancing different elements of EVE and one of the first projects he gets to work on is the relationship between Supercapitals, Fighters and Drones. Be gentle on him, he's got a tough one!
Wrangler, for us (players) and zulu it will be better if you transfer him back to Quality Assurance department.
His proposition will kill this game, and you lose job. Players are tired and wont sustain such horrible stupid idea like capital nerf. Its only one man for god, you want risk future of this game for one man? Seriously man watch how many of us are against.
Well this one was caught because they made a blog about it. Who knows what other garbage this guy is thinking up that they'll just try and sneak in. Basically lost all faith in CCPs development staff. At that point the question needs to be asked why continue. The next question after that is what game to go too.
Z CCP (Producers of Slide Show Online) takin the fun out of EVE, one patch at a time. |
|
Robet Katrix
Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:33:00 -
[631]
Absolutely pathetic.
Say this wont happen publically. Otherwise long term stability. (Which is what makes EVE what it is) will be disrupted.
|
Sentinel Eeex
Caldari DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:34:00 -
[632]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
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.
What we want is pretty basic: We want to make fighter wielding capital ships more reliant on their support fleet and less of a direct nber deathbringer.
CCP - would you be kind enough to actually explain what exactly is worrying you, so we can all understand what you are trying to achieve?
1. Are you worried that 3 mothership pilots can unleash 60 fighters? 2. Are you worried that 30 carriers can unleash 360 fighters? 3. Are you worried about the lag created by fighterswarms? 3. Are you worried about low-sec gankers in motherships? 4. Are you worried that in a year or two, 70% of fleets fighting each other will consist of carriers/motherships? 5. Are you worried that carriers/motherships are overpowered? If so, then elaborate how you see them overpowered? 6. ...
I mean, just say what is your concern. I don't think anyone understands why you want to make these changes. I think most people wanted lag fixed, not carriers/motherships nerfed. |
Robet Katrix
Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:34:00 -
[633]
Originally by: Ztrain
Originally by: Trass
Originally by: CCP Wrangler Zulu is now working on balancing different elements of EVE and one of the first projects he gets to work on is the relationship between Supercapitals, Fighters and Drones. Be gentle on him, he's got a tough one!
Wrangler, for us (players) and zulu it will be better if you transfer him back to Quality Assurance department.
His proposition will kill this game, and you lose job. Players are tired and wont sustain such horrible stupid idea like capital nerf. Its only one man for god, you want risk future of this game for one man? Seriously man watch how many of us are against.
Well this one was caught because they made a blog about it. Who knows what other garbage this guy is thinking up that they'll just try and sneak in. Basically lost all faith in CCPs development staff. At that point the question needs to be asked why continue. The next question after that is what game to go too.
Z
QFT
....because its true.
|
Aryth
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:35:00 -
[634]
For the same reasons many have posted, this is a horrible "fix". However, in the interest of being constructive I will give my 2 cents.
First, the real problem with the fighter cloud isn't them vaporizing bs's, it's that with the huge lag it creates, anything sub capital gets nuked in the huge 5 minute plus lag. Caps don't feel this pain near as much since they have huge tanks, and a million HP+ buffer to react.
So, while browsing test a couple weeks ago, I came upon what I thought was the PERFECT fix. I even though it might be imminent since the items are there.
On test, there exist BS/Cruiser/Frigate classed "Fighters". Basically a carrier could get 2 BS Fighters at a time, or say 4 Cruiser, or 10 Frigates etc. Now, if you made the stats strongly favor using the biggest drones you could/have then each carrier would only be launching 2 drones a t time. They would have the same DPS as say 10 fighters but a fifth of the lag.
You could use the forthcoming drone bandwidth to determine the size of the fighters you could launch. I believe on test they are actually called "escorts" but my memory is a bit fuzzy.
If you made these escorts large enough, it also prevents the spamming of them in an endless swarm in a battle. Make everyone want to use the bs sized escorts, but only be able to carry maybe 2 "racks" of them.
This would also make combat a bit more tactical since presumably, you can use very slow blaster type escorts, or faster HAC types etc. So in a close quarter brawl, the blaster escorts win. But 50km + out, they may very well get destroyed before they reach the target.
|
Fayde Tu'Blaque
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:35:00 -
[635]
Originally by: ArmyOfMe
|
Galactic reporter
Galactic reporter independant news corp
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:36:00 -
[636]
Worst IDEA EVER
|
Max Torps
Gallente eXceed Inc. INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:37:00 -
[637]
Originally by: Kaaii
I didn't want last year anyway.....
This one made me laugh. Amidst the despair etc and so on.
CyberSpace UK Radio Fanfest visit confirmed! Woohoo!
|
Mc Leech
The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:37:00 -
[638]
Person who came up with this idea has never engaged in large capital fleet battles. If this goes in than who ever is defending will have a HUGE advantage over attacking side that has to jump in. Defending side will have everything set up and assigned while attackers will have to what assigne fighters in the middle of fleet battle? Whats going to be next dreads can only shoot at POSes and mine veldspar?
|
Han Horensii
Res Publica R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:37:00 -
[639]
this is disguize anyway, the solo and only reason to this nerf is lag
so what if that does not reduce lag, what are ccp going to nerf after? drones? 1 drone at each time in space only? or even no drone it's better, you can also remove the players no lag at all (but sincerely they will prolly leave themselves with such ideas)
or you can, as you admited lag does exist server side, work on it and also fix what is broken in this game.
yet another scam post yea
|
ookke
TALON'S GRIP
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:40:00 -
[640]
Motherships and carriers have already both been nerfed quite a bit: no pos fighter assigning, warp cancelling dictor spheres, no jumping from inside a sphere, and heavy interdictors will make a mothership pilots life a lot riskier too, why exactly do you feel they need an even further nerf?
|
|
Gyle
Caldari Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:40:00 -
[641]
Originally by: Bein Glorious So, uh, I kind of came up with this idea a few months ago (unless somebody else came up with the same idea and beat me to it), so I feel that I should weigh in on this.
At the time I came up with the idea partially to decrease fighter lag in a more elegant way than a fighter deflation (i.e. reducing the 15 fighters a carrier can use down to 5 fighters with more HP and damage as well) as change a couple other things, but I actually scrapped the idea after thinking about it for a while because I figured that a) too many people would hate it, b) it doesn't really do much to decrease lag all by itself, and c) if they fixed the lag in some other way, the carrier spam problem could work itself out anyway.
That said, it does do a couple things that you can't really deny:
1. It stops people from dropping ten carriers on roaming gank gangs (which is lame if you're on the receiving end but it's not a major problem) without support.
2. It hurts motherships in lowsec quite a bit, though if you could just scramble them, that would be just as good.
3. It does more-or-less force the need for support ships, which some would argue isn't an important enough deal for carriers/motherships right now.
But this change isn't just about nerfing carriers in combat or whatever, it's also about stopping MUDflation. At some point, CCP and some other people reached the conclusion that there are just too many carriers/motherships around to be good for the game. The only solution to that is, well, yeah, you kinda have to nerf something, because if you don't, people will just get more and more of them. But if you want to nerf something, look at what there is to work with here:
1. Remote reps - you can't really nerf this, since that's a major part of what carriers are supposed to do. They should be able to assist other ships.
2. Personal tank or capital hitpoints - you can't really nerf this, since that was kind of the point of the Rev 1.0 hitpoint buff. That, and if you really want to decrease the number of carriers in a fleet, this would kind of do the opposite, since you would need to have MORE carriers available for remote repping.
3. Fighters - They do a significant amount of damage but are pretty expensive, and they're the most directly involved with killing people. And they make lag.
Fighters are the choice that is the least likely to break the game or totally gimp carriers, given the alternatives.
Ya i read that thread thought it was rather niave then too.
1. Hot dropping on roaming gangs is not lame. It is a strategic modifying factor that makes outcomes less certain then you scouts prognosis. (yah theres four guyus in local,m all ready all in BC's "ooo we can pwn that" gets a little boring.
2. nurfing motherships for no decernable reason will servre no purpose except alienate some of eves most dedicated players.
3. support is critical to all cap fleets or you die. simple as. 1 Arazu disables one carrer. can you tell me why we need to disable there ability to defend themsleves anymore for gods sake?!!!
options
1. would take a remote rep nurf above propsed changes any day
2. your original thread was all about promoting performance. thats ccp's responsibility and they should try to do it without wiping 2 ship classes out of the game. they are bringing lower poly modles into the game in rev three maybe that will help.
3. Other then your lag issue there was no real justification for a nurf and quiet frankly there still isnt.
|
Ozstar
Naughty 40 Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:42:00 -
[642]
Sorry guys but this is monumentally bad idea, carriers as far from "solopwnmobile" as you can get, without a support fleet they go down to a small roaming gang.
If you continue to nerf ships that take over a year to train for, then you are going to alienate your hardcore members.
|
WarGod
The Illuminati. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:43:00 -
[643]
Theres so many things wrong with ur idea i really dont know where to begin, so i will leave you with 1 word.
Clueless.
War.
You Know! |
Zeveron
Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:43:00 -
[644]
I dont think carriers are overpowered atm. The main problem carriers have, is the lag they produce, using the only weapon they are given by ccp.
Lets say CCP nerfs the carriers. Is the problem gona be solved? No. Why? Well every ship can handle 5 drones. Lets say you jump in on a gate camp of 50 ppl and all have 5 drones each out. Thats 250 drone using AI to target, fly, reposition, make/get damage etc. Thats a lot of srv resources and threads and the hardware cannot handle it.
So CCP is gona nerf fighters and the problem isnt gona be solved.
Why not change the way fighter and drones work? Lets use them as normal weapons apearing over the target. They cannot be destroyed but they gona be used out (like ammo).
Less calculations for the srv, less lag, but instead of a nerf, a change.
|
Zenst
Gallente Omniscient Order Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:44:00 -
[645]
The UI for gang and delegation is not upto this proposal in the spirit it is meant.
This proposal also goes against the whole aspect of getting caps away from POS hugging and into the feild.
So fighters the new way to haul minerals - as thats all there realy be useful for now.
|
Law Enforcer
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:44:00 -
[646]
this idea deserves the title "epic fail".
|
Dav Varan
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:45:00 -
[647]
Its not April the First is it
This is about as constructive as I can be at the moment
This idea truly sucks
A better idea would be to implement damage over time stacking that affects all ships.
attack 1 does 100% damage attack 2 does 90% damage attack 3 does 81% damage attack 4 does 73% damage
etc etc per second.
This should apply to all ships doing damage to a single target.
This way a mom pilot can still launch all drones/fighters v 1 target , but would be less effective than spreading the damage.
|
Calvin Firenze
Thanos and Killjoy Productions Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:45:00 -
[648]
I'm not a carrier pilot, and never will be if this gets implemented.
I'm sorry I only read the first 7 pages.
Constructive criticism: Obviously a nerf of this sort is going to happen. Every time I saw you (CCP Zulupark) reply to a question/complaint all I saw was you getting defensive. Rather than that, try to listen to people and work out a compromise or just say "you know what players, you're right." (We do pay your salary you know)
PS: A good compromise leaves both parties unhappy. Think about it
Originally by: Morrow Disca You sir/madam, need a big cup of STFU.
|
Mallikanth
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:45:00 -
[649]
I don't see the point in issues fighters or drones in groups of 5 to other members of the gang, as has been mentioned before, this is like throwing the carrier pilots money down the drain.
It's a carrier for crying out loud. Isn't it supposed to be able to send out "clouds" of fighters both to protect itself AND assign to others should the guy want too?
Restricting me to having 5 fighters to look after my own ass, when I have a hold full of 'em (relativly speaking) is just plain crazy.
These proposed changes turn a carrier into a glorified Domi with lots of armor.
I don't believe there is a "solution" to the "problem" you describe. A carrier on the high seas in real life is vunerable, as is a lone carrier in eve. Untackled it's very powerfull in both cases. Please don't do this CCP.
|
Rheinkraft
D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:47:00 -
[650]
Bad idea imo, Just leave that idea alone until you have sorted other things out i.e. lag
Under The Black Flag Est 2004 |
|
tantaluss
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:48:00 -
[651]
is this line for kicking ccp in the ass for even thinking about what there doing its time ccp start thinking before they post . so i ll bring the rope just need some were to hang ccp from guys
|
7137
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:48:00 -
[652]
better-than-battleships-at-killing-stuff ships, costing a bill and with a lot more training it damn well should be.
|
Frida Floppy
Asgard Schiffswerften Ev0ke
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:49:00 -
[653]
if this happens it is the 6th time i wast skill time and then you nerf or change it ( ¦this time carryer 5 )
you maybe have nerf the carryer and moms actually enough ........ if you fell tey overpowerd remove them and not nerf them to useles ships .
join a big Battle and you know that it is in large engagements impossible to sign all fighters to other pilotes.
Most worst idea ever ....... thanks for ruin a game more and more . Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed filesize of 24000 bytes -Taiatia ([email protected]) |
Ting Zan
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:51:00 -
[654]
Edited by: Ting Zan on 21/10/2007 19:52:05 Edited by: Ting Zan on 21/10/2007 19:51:31 "Lets get ret.ard.e.d"
No. Try something else.
|
CopyCatz
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:54:00 -
[655]
Originally by: John MacCoy
Originally by: CCP Zulupark Thanks for your input guys, there's some interesting points here. We are of course taking all your comments seriously into consideration and will reflect upon it over the next days. We will keep you up to date of our findings, now go enjoy your Sunday night slaughter.
I hope you do. I think alot of people wil be very annoyed it you just go "Screw them, we're doing it anyways."
I'm afraid that that is going to be the outcome...
|
a51 duke1406
Order Of The Sentinel
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:54:00 -
[656]
Right yet again CCP have nerfed something that does not need to be done. So the main aim of this patch as far as I can tell is primarily aimed at motherships, well simple solution... make them 0.0 only. No more low sec gate camping. The way this patch is looking, I feel for the poor gits who spent 30+ billion on a ship, they cant even step out of. Will now esscentially be flying something that allows them to give 5 extra drones to someone. Wow nice job ccp, fantastic as always
|
bixentine
Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:54:00 -
[657]
hmmmm, are ccp recruiting devs from star wars galaxies now?
those who ever played it you'll know what i mean. those who didn't will get the idea anyway.
.
|
Inflexible
Rytiri Lva
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:55:00 -
[658]
This is perfect example why devs should play the game.
|
Nathrezim
Gallente Darwin With Attitude oooh Shiny
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:56:00 -
[659]
Ok about the fighters. Nothing in eve is ment to be a solo barbequer without decent stuff supporting it (well, with the sole exception of the doomsday device, which can be countered through planning)
But the limiting the ammount of launched drones aswell?
You telling us that a NYX has the same intel/technology-level regarding launching regular drones as an ISHKUR?? 5 drones out? Come on, cut us some slack. thats just silly roleplaying-wise aswell.. You cant say that a damn frigate has the same technology level as a Mothership Rethink the drone bit please...
|
Knocturnal
omen. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:01:00 -
[660]
Now why would i pay s***loads of isk for a ship that can do nothing ... Warp in on grid ? get bubbeld and die due to the lag. Since we all know supercaps won't be reimbursed . A 30b ship shouldn't be a solopwn mobile.. what is wrong with you... Why do you have to bring even more ships on the field to fight a fight... just to make more lag and boost the bloobs ... wtf is wrong with you ?
F*ck Derek we got Xlop. |
|
Han Horensii
Res Publica R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:01:00 -
[661]
Edited by: Han Horensii on 21/10/2007 20:04:42
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?
1-no 2-no 3-no 4-no
i have simple questions after those : 1-* the carrier is already itself a support ship. either used at pos delegating fighters or in the fleet combat using remote repairs. So there is seriously no need of more support oriented to this ship. It is possible in the actual game mechanic, people can delegate or they can not choose to. as simple as this. For experienced carriers players (everyone WILL AGREE WITH ME on this) delegating IS a problem in fleet battle, not only because some dont want to let their tows in the hand of inexperimemted players, BUT because it takes AWSOME time to get them delegated, and moreover REDELEGATED when the ship that has them is killed. Thus the direct use of fighters is significantly a boost to the CONTROL of those fighters.
if i delegate fighters i loose 10s before they are actually in space with the ship i delegate them, if the ships dies, that's 10more second before the fighters come back, then 10 more seconds to redelegate if not in grid.
If in grid, with admitedly LAG during fleet battle, assigning fighters is pointless IN THE HEAT of the battle, that is why ACTUALLY they are delegated before each session of fights, and when everyone warped out.
The system you propose will simply be one of the worse and not GAME INTERFACE FRIENDLY carrier pilots experience right now.
I would rather see some new option to drone control, without using the overview for that, like icons next to the F1-F8 that would reflect pre-made drone groups, and short cuts assigned to drone control.
2-* actually the systems is that when you deploy yourself a fighter your fighter bonus (thanks to skill) does apply to the damage done but not when delegated so what is plan in that dev blog? is the fighter skill extented to delegation also? or will it just be a loss of train to a lvl5 rank awsome skill?
3-* when you say : If this change nullifies the difference between those two ships, what's the difference today? well it's simple its the number of fighters you can deploy, yes obviously, but the real difference is in the skill itself and of ONE man able to use correctly a lot of fighter at a time. The all thing will be in the future of the FIGHTER skill, will it give also damage bonus to delegated fighters? if no the actual difference between a mothership and a carrier IS
|
Strategos
Genco Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:01:00 -
[662]
I love all the crying in this thread.
Good change CCP! I support this 100%. Less drones on the field is always a good thing (especially from capital blobs consisting of 30+ carriers and 5+ Moms)! Increasing drone damage and HP a bit more for Motherships/Carriers would make up for the number reduction, though even if you didn't up the damage a little bit for them I still support this 100%.
Either way, I like it! ---Sig--- Sig removed, not appropriate for the forum. Please contact [email protected] for more info (including a copy of your picture!) -Pirlouit
|
Miz Cenuij
Caldari Simply Smacktackular
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:02:00 -
[663]
LOL, Popular move. NOT.
Do as you please with fighters, it will not stop low sec Mothership pirates.
I have already worked out a solution to keep doing what i do in the mothership if this change goes through.
Always one step ahead
"Men are going to die..
and im going to kill them". |
Navigaytion
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:02:00 -
[664]
Edited by: Navi***tion on 21/10/2007 20:02:56 What a waste of skillpoints and money , if u want a support ship make a new type of capital ships. Don't nerve a 800mil isk ship....Just a big waste of money....
|
ExcellciuM
Exair Industries United Connection's
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:07:00 -
[665]
This is without a doubt one of the most ridiculous ideas ever, even if it is just an idea. Not sure whether its a joke for cap ships or what but still pretty stupid. This will just mean that there will be more dreads floating around killing the super big ships-that-keep-other-ships-alive-and-provide-them-with-additional-firepower then what? nerf dreads for only 2 guns because they are too effective? Or better-than-battleships/carriers-at-killing-stuff to use your terms
Maybe quality assurance was meant to be your calling....
Epic Fail
|
Rusty PwnStar
Rampage Eternal Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:07:00 -
[666]
Originally by: Strategos I love all the crying in this thread.
Good change CCP! I support this 100%. Less drones on the field is always a good thing (especially from capital blobs consisting of 30+ carriers and 5+ Moms)! Increasing drone damage and HP a bit more for Motherships/Carriers would make up for the number reduction, though even if you didn't up the damage a little bit for them I still support this 100%.
Either way, I like it!
Re-read the blog, it does not reduce drones on the field. So it makes no change to lag, which is the real problem.
Regards Rusty |
Zombie Network
GoonFleet
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:07:00 -
[667]
I can see what CCP are trying to do here, make the Carrier more of a capital support vessel rather than the Capital DPS machine it currently is. They want carriers/MS on the battlefield repping and assigning fighter rather than popping fighters and just doing the job themselves.
I think this change would feel a little less nerfish if it was coupled with a boost in another area. Personally I think the Triage module could do with having a look at: - Increase the range so that the ship can lock/rep up to 100km - Decrease Triage module duraion/fuel cost to 120 sec/100 stront - Capacitor reduction for regular/remote reps - Allow assigned fighters while in Triage (but none to be controlled by carrier)
I imagine a carrier warping into a fight and dropping into Triage, while in Triage it should be extremely difficult to kill while at the same time providing both logistic and fighter support to the entire battlefield for the duration of the battle. Right now the period of vulnerability is too long, carriers run out of cap within the first two minutes of being in Triage making them useless and extremely vulnerable for the remaining period, and it is VERY easy for allied pilots to get out or logistics range without realising it.
This leads to practically nobody using the Triage module... I think this fighter change would go down a lot better with a boost to Triage to make it more usefull and feasable on the battlefield.
|
Vherokan
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:08:00 -
[668]
Originally by: Strategos I love all the crying in this thread.
Good change CCP! I support this 100%. Less drones on the field is always a good thing (especially from capital blobs consisting of 30+ carriers and 5+ Moms)! Increasing drone damage and HP a bit more for Motherships/Carriers would make up for the number reduction, though even if you didn't up the damage a little bit for them I still support this 100%.
Either way, I like it!
This won't put less drones on the field, learn to read.
And no, upping drone damage and hp wouldn't make it all ok, it would turn them into an expensive Dominix. The ability to field 10-12 drones is key here. We don't want less ******* drones that do more damage.
|
ViolenTUK
Gallente Vindicated Exiles
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:09:00 -
[669]
This is a pointless and very stupid nerf. We dont need this nerf at all. Carriers work as they are and dont need changing. They arent overly powerfull solo machines. I have seen a megathron wear down a carrier successfully by itself.
www.eve-players.com |
Snakebloke
Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:09:00 -
[670]
Originally by: Strategos I love all the crying in this thread.
Good change CCP! I support this 100%. Less drones on the field is always a good thing (especially from capital blobs consisting of 30+ carriers and 5+ Moms)! Increasing drone damage and HP a bit more for Motherships/Carriers would make up for the number reduction, though even if you didn't up the damage a little bit for them I still support this 100%.
Either way, I like it!
Im sorry but dude, how can you support this? i agree that mass carrier/motehrship blobs are wrong but this isnt the way to go about it. Other ideas must be explored.
------------------------
|
|
Strategos
Genco Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:11:00 -
[671]
Edited by: Strategos on 21/10/2007 20:11:43
Originally by: Rusty PwnStar
Originally by: Strategos I love all the crying in this thread.
Good change CCP! I support this 100%. Less drones on the field is always a good thing (especially from capital blobs consisting of 30+ carriers and 5+ Moms)! Increasing drone damage and HP a bit more for Motherships/Carriers would make up for the number reduction, though even if you didn't up the damage a little bit for them I still support this 100%.
Either way, I like it!
Re-read the blog, it does not reduce drones on the field. So it makes no change to lag, which is the real problem.
Actually, it does. I take it you've never seen a capital blob consisting of 30+ carriers and 5+ moms? Making them only be able to field 5 drones THEMSELVES reduces the number of drones on the field in capitals blobs by a lot. This now forces carrier/mom pilots to assign fighters to their support fleet (meaning they are no longer the offensive weapon they are today) instead of roasting a BS by themselves in a couple seconds. ---Sig--- Sig removed, not appropriate for the forum. Please contact [email protected] for more info (including a copy of your picture!) -Pirlouit
|
Kichigai
Wreckless Abandon Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:13:00 -
[672]
Good thing I trained for Dread first.
|
Jogvan
coracao ardente Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:13:00 -
[673]
Worst.Idea.Ever!
|
Crimsonjade
Stupid People Always Need Killing Insurgency
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:13:00 -
[674]
might possibly the worst idea ever ccp.
you: What we want is pretty basic: We want to make fighter wielding capital ships more reliant on their support fleet and less of a direct nber deathbringer.
me: not sure what game your playing but fly a carrier in pvp once pls before you tell me its a uber deathbringer
you :Well, we have an idea, and before you go ballistic remember that this is an idea and weære still working on it
me : heard ford and GM are going to make conbustable cars that double as bbq's, but they at least don't advertise the fact
you: Not only do we want to limit the amount of fighters you can launch, but also the amount of drones! Yes, we want to limit carriers and motherships just like other ships, i.e. they should only be able to field 5 regular drones at any given time
me: im speechless i mean truly WTF do want the carrier to be now? a logistics ship?
after 4 years in eve i really truly dislike this idea INTENSLY enough to question my staying here if we have to nerf a ship class so badly its completly non useful unless we get a gang to support it. and its not excatly a titan ya know. it cant DD and take out its close in enemys.
seriously i think your headed in the wrong direction here. completely wrong direction
i more for you guys figuring out a way to lessen the bandwith the drones use, or something else.whatever your trying to do,this isnt the way.
this is way to drastic to even be looked at seriously imo
|
Gyle
Caldari Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:14:00 -
[675]
Edited by: Gyle on 21/10/2007 20:14:38
Originally by: Strategos I love all the crying in this thread.
Good change CCP! I support this 100%. Less drones on the field is always a good thing (especially from capital blobs consisting of 30+ carriers and 5+ Moms)! Increasing drone damage and HP a bit more for Motherships/Carriers would make up for the number reduction, though even if you didn't up the damage a little bit for them I still support this 100%.
Either way, I like it!
noob whose gonna play the game for 4 months and then quit. and ccp is more worried about keeping peeps like that interested rather then listen to the veiws and opinions of its long standing members who own many multiple accounts.
Sickening
|
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:14:00 -
[676]
Edited by: XoPhyte on 21/10/2007 20:14:58
Originally by: Strategos
Actually, it does. I take it you've never seen a capital blob consisting of 30+ carriers and 5+ moms? Making them only be able to field 5 drones THEMSELVES reduces the number of drones on the field in capitals blobs by a lot. This now forces carrier/mom pilots to assign fighters to their support fleet (meaning they are no longer the offensive weapon they are today) instead of roasting a BS by themselves in a couple seconds.
Translation:
I have not invested the time, effort or isk for a carrier myself and therefore they should be nerfed for everyone else.
|
Dragy
Caldari Royal Hiigaran Navy YouWhat
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:15:00 -
[677]
Quote: post constructively and you just might make a difference in the (EVE) universe
With all respect to the game called Eve, all the past, all the wars i've been fighting, and every fallen comrade, THIS devblog does not deserve ANY constructive posts. It should be flamed out of your minds. If this is what you label as : improvement then you shouldn't even write programs in c++ ... This is like raping a 6year old girl and saying that it's her fault, cause she smiled at you ! Or like ... if you had a parrot and you'd be scared for her to escape ... would you cut her wings or make protection with windows, some bars etc ? If this change is implemented Eve will just continue to collapse. The problem of cap ships shoudl be resolved differently and not while nerfing normal carriers too ! You're disgusting.
|
Lord Starwolf
Caldari Kodan Armada
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:17:00 -
[678]
If you want carrier pilots to use their ships as " the-ships-that-keep-other-ships-alive-and-provide-them-with-additional-firepower ships" Give them incentive to do so. As it stands currently, triage generally sucks, and assigning fighters doesn't leave your skills applied to them. Not to mention fighter costs...
Other than reducing lag (somewhat) which you've allready stated is not the reason for the nerf... why the hell would you consider this? What purpose does it serve? A carrier doesn't do a hell of a lot better dps than a battleship... and noone seems to take issue with them outside of lag.
So thanks for bringing forth the idea... it isn't a great one.
|
Atius Tirawa
Minmatar Wreckless Abandon Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:17:00 -
[679]
Edited by: Atius Tirawa on 21/10/2007 20:19:17 If this is an attempt to satisfy those AFK traders in low-sec, then simply ban Supercaps from low sec. It will make lowsec even more of a wasteland then it is now - but at least you get to keep those wow-heads happy (they will eventually cry when they finally get to fly one).
However, changing the way drones work is not the solution to any of the problems carriers may have in their use in combat - quite simply - the blog's explination of why the carriers are being nurfed is insufficiant to warrent their change.
As mentioned earlier, small scale pvp in eve is dying just as solo pvp is al but dead. You folks at CCP should be working out ways to make pvp more accessable both in low-sec and on the small scale levels. Not limiting and defining the roles of ships that are not broken at the tactical level.
Edited for clarity.
|
Miyamoto Uroki
Katsu Corporation
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:18:00 -
[680]
Edited by: Miyamoto Uroki on 21/10/2007 20:23:02 hehe. Good decision, ccp. I have trained carrier to level 5 and this move of yours is a seriously good one.
You can see that it is a good decision, just by the amount of whiners in this thread. The more whine = the more needed change to the game imho. There wouldn't be so much whiners if this "feature" of carriers wouldn't be overused alot.
And if you now check how many of these whiners are thanatos/nyx pilots, I am pretty sure the ratio would be damn high. ^^ It seems like lots of people didn't realize that this change doesn't limit the total possible dps of your carrier at all. You just need a small gang to get all the dps now.
BUT like several posters before me mentioned: If you want carrier the ubar support ships, iron out the faults on them. Like making capital remote modules use less cap, add the bonuses to assigned fighters... oh, and plz allow assigning fighters in 0.4 systems..
Originally by: Puupuu dude... your face
|
|
Strategos
Genco Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:21:00 -
[681]
Originally by: Gyle Edited by: Gyle on 21/10/2007 20:14:38
Originally by: Strategos I love all the crying in this thread.
Good change CCP! I support this 100%. Less drones on the field is always a good thing (especially from capital blobs consisting of 30+ carriers and 5+ Moms)! Increasing drone damage and HP a bit more for Motherships/Carriers would make up for the number reduction, though even if you didn't up the damage a little bit for them I still support this 100%.
Either way, I like it!
Way to make baseless accusations! I have been in 0.0 for over 2 years now, thank you very much! This is the main of my second account. This character is training Gall, my main on my first account is Caldari. Im sure the spies in BoB/MC w/e can tell you this as I freely admit both characters are mine when they are both in the same gang.
noob whose gonna play the game for 4 months and then quit. and ccp is more worried about keeping peeps like that interested rather then listen to the veiws and opinions of its long standing members who own many multiple accounts.
Sickening
---Sig--- Sig removed, not appropriate for the forum. Please contact [email protected] for more info (including a copy of your picture!) -Pirlouit
|
Dragy
Caldari Royal Hiigaran Navy YouWhat
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:21:00 -
[682]
Originally by: Miyamoto Uroki hehe. Good decision, ccp. I have trained carrier to level 5 and this move of yours is a seriously good one.
You can see that it is a good decision, just by the amount of whiners in this thread. The more whine = the more needed change to the game imho. There wouldn't be so much whiners if this "feature" of carriers wouldn't be overused alot.
And if you now check how many of these whiners are thanatos/nyx pilots, I am pretty sure the ration would be damn high. ^^
i ahve a nid and i'm happy that i have her. would you not react like us if your precious raven got only 3 missile hardpoints instead of 6 ?
|
Animo06
Minmatar The New Era
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:21:00 -
[683]
worst idea ever.
|
emepror
Gallente The Holy Hand Grenades of Antioch Dogs of War.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:21:00 -
[684]
this is like saying an american aircraft carrier can only launch 2-4 of its 80-95 fighter contingent, its ******* rediculous, i hate this idea completely and this has just about killed my ambition for a carrier, CCP you should think about what a ship is supposed to do not just nerf everything 6 months after it comes out, yes it may need balancing but then just reduce damage or lower ROF on the fighters, make carriers more expensive or (dear god no) harder to train for.
this is the most stupid idea i have ever seen from CCP, stop listening to the stupid noobs that whine about everything that scratches their shields and listen to the people who actually play and not just whine.
|
Gyle
Caldari Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:21:00 -
[685]
Originally by: Miyamoto Uroki hehe. Good decision, ccp. I have trained carrier to level 5 and this move of yours is a seriously good one.
You can see that it is a good decision, just by the amount of whiners in this thread. The more whine = the more needed change to the game imho. There wouldn't be so much whiners if this "feature" of carriers wouldn't be overused alot.
And if you now check how many of these whiners are thanatos/nyx pilots, I am pretty sure the ration would be damn high. ^^
WOW fantasic philiosfy... lets aim to upset as many people as possibly. Funny i thought the object was to make a game that people want to play instead of torturing the player bass and forcing the game to a close when 50% of the people (with multiple accounts) leave the game
|
Poister
Amarr THEM. Praesidium Libertatis
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:22:00 -
[686]
Edited by: Poister on 21/10/2007 20:22:12 This Idea not only Sux, it blows at the same time!
|
Atius Tirawa
Minmatar Wreckless Abandon Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:22:00 -
[687]
Originally by: Miyamoto Uroki hehe. Good decision, ccp. I have trained carrier to level 5 and this move of yours is a seriously good one.
You can see that it is a good decision, just by the amount of whiners in this thread. The more whine = the more needed change to the game imho. There wouldn't be so much whiners if this "feature" of carriers wouldn't be overused alot.
And if you now check how many of these whiners are thanatos/nyx pilots, I am pretty sure the ration would be damn high. ^^
your logic is off. Many of the people posing here have been playing since beta, I have been playing for 4 years myself (beta sucked so I didn't stick around). We are all concerned about what this will do to the nature of pvp and to be honest I think the issues brought up are fair and balanced for the most part.
The off logic is: More people complain the better. This is no way to manage a community - and as ccp has shown - this is not how they manage the game. . .the holds on PvP will show that EvE is slowly becoming a strange sort of economic-pve game.
|
Orimuar
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:23:00 -
[688]
Worst idea to nerf carriers. What do you want to fix? You just kill carriers at all. It is stupid to train carrier for sit on POS in fleet operation. IMHO in this situation best to train sniper BS and forget carriers forever.
|
Prolapse
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:24:00 -
[689]
If this post was started by anyone other than a dev it would be locked and the person warned for trolling with flaim bait.
If it hasn't sunk in by now that its an ill thought out idea then god help us.. Its as bad as voting an inept president in to a second term.
There were some good constructive ideas in there having read through but sadly they will be lost amongst the defaning whine.
Please don't just whine try to think of somthing constructive.
|
Acacia Everto
Wings of Redemption Black Flag Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:26:00 -
[690]
Edited by: Acacia Everto on 21/10/2007 20:27:18 CCP Zulupark, I apologize on behalf of the playerbase at our strong reaction to your idea and our subsequent taking out of our frustration on you. You aren't an idiot, it's just we don't think your idea is going the right way.
1) It would make Carriers even LESS frontline. 2) POS hugging. This would be even more of a feature of Carriers that "just" delegate. 3) In my capital, I want to be able to jump in on a fight and make a difference. Not jump in, spend forever delegating my now damage-nerfed (delegation kills our skill/ship bonii) fighters, and then shoot spitwads at them with my remaining fighters while Dreads lob XL charges at my hull.
As they are now, Carriers and Motherships are fine when it comes to drones. They die every day in battle, and heaven forbid a Carrier is caught alone, it'll be dead in minutes. The real problem lies with Motherships.
Motherships need to be restricted to 0.0, or lose their EWAR immunity in empire. Perhaps CONCORD requiring that all electronic warfare disruption systems be disabled for all ships entering empire territory. This would make MoMs not solopwnmobiles and make it a genuine risk to field one in lowsec. That's why they are such a problem. Carriers can be tackled and destroyed by small gangs and aren't really a problem at all. Whenever I see a Thanatos around, I don't worry about it, I can avoid it or damp it to hell and leave, or get together a gang to kill it. It's a Nyx that worries me.
My corp (the one StratComm is from, who also posted in this thread) uses Carriers for all sorts of operations, and they really have to be ready to help defend themselves and take on some of the load, as our corp really isn't that big. I'd fly my battleships and die first, but if I'm flying my Dominix, it's to our advantage that I can use my Ogre IIs and Strat his fighters. That's an example anyways. As a Carrier pilot, I likely would delegate fighters some of the time if the damage bonus given by Fighters/Gallente Carrier was kept. But I want the option to control my own during battle.
Also, in the future, instead of presenting it as a change. Say in big bold letters "THIS IS AN IDEA, NOT A NERF. Please give feedback and ideas on how to improve. Until we get a better idea of the situation, there will be no changes to Carriers." and maybe you won't get such a ****ed off response, and instead more level-headed thoughtful remarks. Signature My signature exceeds the 24000 byte limit allowed on the forums by 844 bytes, oh noes. |
|
Strategos
Genco Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:26:00 -
[691]
Originally by: XoPhyte Edited by: XoPhyte on 21/10/2007 20:14:58
Originally by: Strategos
Actually, it does. I take it you've never seen a capital blob consisting of 30+ carriers and 5+ moms? Making them only be able to field 5 drones THEMSELVES reduces the number of drones on the field in capitals blobs by a lot. This now forces carrier/mom pilots to assign fighters to their support fleet (meaning they are no longer the offensive weapon they are today) instead of roasting a BS by themselves in a couple seconds.
Translation:
I have not invested the time, effort or isk for a carrier myself and therefore they should be nerfed for everyone else.
Grow up Xo. Carriers and Motherships won't be the offensive weapons you use them for anymore. They were never meant to be offensive weapons in the first place. They will now depend on a support fleet to work at their full potential, which is how they were always meant to be. ---Sig--- Sig removed, not appropriate for the forum. Please contact [email protected] for more info (including a copy of your picture!) -Pirlouit
|
Zenobite
The Black Fleet
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:26:00 -
[692]
Edited by: Zenobite on 21/10/2007 20:27:52
Originally by: CCP Zulupark Righto then.
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?
1. Guess it depends on your definition of support role, mine would be remote reps etc, not spending an entire battle sitting at a pos juggling fighter assignments.
2. and 3. I really don't have any idea how this will balance anything.
4. Adds unnecessary complication, will give defenders a massive advantage, doesn't really achieve anything.
|
Snakebloke
Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:27:00 -
[693]
Edited by: Snakebloke on 21/10/2007 20:28:03
Originally by: Gyle Edited by: Gyle on 21/10/2007 20:14:38
Originally by: Strategos I love all the crying in this thread.
Good change CCP! I support this 100%. Less drones on the field is always a good thing (especially from capital blobs consisting of 30+ carriers and 5+ Moms)! Increasing drone damage and HP a bit more for Motherships/Carriers would make up for the number reduction, though even if you didn't up the damage a little bit for them I still support this 100%.
Either way, I like it!
noob whose gonna play the game for 4 months and then quit. and ccp is more worried about keeping peeps like that interested rather then listen to the veiws and opinions of its long standing members who own many multiple accounts.
Sickening
F**K YEAH dude ------------------------
Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed filesize of 24000 bytes -Rauth Kivaro ([email protected])
|
FLAME 61
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:27:00 -
[694]
I do not understand that it will correct, is more likely simple carrier/ms will simply cease to exist in game. I swing кариер at present, but at such turn of event I do not see in it sense if only to repair or something to transport.
|
Patch86
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:28:00 -
[695]
The fact that every major Capship owner in the game is in here complaining tells me that its probably a good move
Seriously though, I don't buy the whole "I trained 6 months for it, I SHOULD be invincible!" argument. Capital ships take a long time to train and cost a fair amount, yes. But that doesn't necessarily mean they should simply be the next "better ship". Thats exactly the thing CCP have been trying to avoid with T2 BSs.
The trend at the moment seems to be that as more and more people become capital capable, more and more capital blobs are being used. And this makes it more and more useless bringing non-capitals to a fleet fight at all. Not that I'm saying non-capitals will ever be truly useless, since a large enough group of anything can beat a small enough group of anything else, and the laws of the game mean that 1 carrier < 1 carrier + 1 battleship. But still, a 50 strong fleet of carriers, dreads and supercaps is a pretty pointless target to any non-capital opponent.
And is that really the direction EVE wants to go? A place where only 1 year veterans can even think of competing in 0.0, and everyone else should stay in Empire until they've ground out the mandatory skill set? I thought the whole beauty of EVE was that every single ship, right down to the T1 frigates, had a legitimate role in serious competition. Carriers and Dreads and such need to have a purpose that is legitimately worth more than a billion iskies, but isn't a one-way trip to solopwntown.
The Blog's suggested change is that their DPS remains as high as it is now, it's tank remains the same, they stay the same speed, price, and keep all their bonuses, but that now you need to fly with some friends to use their full potential. And since everything in cap ship design to date (cyno as a means of travel, and siege/triage 10 minute immobility as examples) tries to make the ships reliant on support fleets for use, I'd say that this is at least a good opening suggestion. ------
Originally by: CCP Prism X There's no such thing as playing too much EvE! You all obviously need more accounts! |
Dragy
Caldari Royal Hiigaran Navy YouWhat
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:28:00 -
[696]
Originally by: Prolapse Please don't just whine try to think of somthing constructive.
Stupidy should be laughed at, not treated with care and understanding.
|
Cadiz
Caldari No Quarter. Vae Victis.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:29:00 -
[697]
How exactly does this idea encourage front-line carrier usage? By making carriers 100% reliant upon delegation, we're just going to go back to the dark ages of "oh, sit at a POS and assign fighters", even though numerous changes (inability to assign fighters inside POS shields, going inside POS shields automatically de-delegates fighters) went directly contrary to that inclination and helped encourage the use of carriers in a front-line role.
Oh well, this is why I trained for a carrier on my alt...it always seemed to be an alt's job, what with the sitting at POSes, letting everybody else have all the fun, and only incidentally running a few cycles of remote repping on people who have warped out from a fight. For a while I was rethinking that philosophy to carrier usage after some fun bouts of using my carrier as a direct combat force multiplier, but if this thing goes through we're right back to that initial school of thought, and then I feel sorry for everybody who trained carriers on their mains. Enjoy watching your POS shields ripple while your buddies are out blowing stuff up. ------ Director, No Quarter "There is no problem that cannot be solved by the judicious application of violence." |
RwPnIKn
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:29:00 -
[698]
The worst ideea ever to change carriers and motherships. They will be useless. I want to have fun in game, to acctualy play not to sit in a damn POS delegating fighters for hours. This is plain stupid.
|
SnakeArts
Caldari Extreme Intentions Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:29:00 -
[699]
This idea is just bad, after spending so much time and effort training skills to be able to fly a carrier. And gathering the funds together you come up with this idea. I do not post much but this is not the way forward.
Nerfing in this way will as many have stated render the carrier too expensive to risk. It will turn into a capital hauler, pos hugger and nothing more.
I dont see a problem in the way carrier's currently work and if this change was imposed the only thing my carrier would be good for is to shift my loot to empire. I wouldnt even bother risking it as the risk is high enough as it stands. A waste of sp for me and a few months of hard slog to get the isk together and train the skills. I could of trained a few other things in the time it took to train carrier.
Snake
|
Mr Friendly
That it Should Come to This Derek Knows Us
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:30:00 -
[700]
Very glad I stopped training for Carriers. This change just encourages larger gangs so the carrier pilot can assign his fighters. I guess it's a small dps drop overall since I assume the assignees don't retain the fighter drone damage bonus. However, this just encourages lag.
However, I don't see why carriers should not be high-damage. Their triage mode seems an ill thought out way to die, their cargo carrying got nerfed a while back, and they aren't that great at acting as tactical support. They cap fairly quickly and take a long time to target friendlies for repping. What else is left but killing other ships?
Removing their combat effectiveness reduces their thing they are good at. Unless CCP adds bonuses to make them into a larger version of the logistics ship (or otherwise makes them effective at a particular role), they are simply insulting those that have spent all that time to train for the carrier, and all that isk the ships, skills and mods have cost.
CCP, give them a role and let them keep it, okay? Otherwise you're not 'balancing', you're 'nerfing'. Please stop nerfing one thing unless you try to add value on something else. __________________________________________________ FOLD. The Ultimate PVP. It really is Us vs. Them. clicky |
|
Strategos
Genco Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:30:00 -
[701]
Originally by: Snakebloke Edited by: Snakebloke on 21/10/2007 20:28:03
Originally by: Gyle Edited by: Gyle on 21/10/2007 20:14:38
Originally by: Strategos I love all the crying in this thread.
Good change CCP! I support this 100%. Less drones on the field is always a good thing (especially from capital blobs consisting of 30+ carriers and 5+ Moms)! Increasing drone damage and HP a bit more for Motherships/Carriers would make up for the number reduction, though even if you didn't up the damage a little bit for them I still support this 100%.
Either way, I like it!
noob whose gonna play the game for 4 months and then quit. and ccp is more worried about keeping peeps like that interested rather then listen to the veiws and opinions of its long standing members who own many multiple accounts.
Sickening
F**K YEAH dude
Way to make baseless accusations! I have been in 0.0 for over 2 years now, thank you very much! This is the main of my second account. This character is training Gall, my main on my first account is Caldari. Im sure the spies in BoB/MC w/e can tell you this as I freely admit both characters are mine when they are both in the same gang. ---Sig--- Sig removed, not appropriate for the forum. Please contact [email protected] for more info (including a copy of your picture!) -Pirlouit
|
Silvion
Kodan Armada
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:30:00 -
[702]
Ok, I understand why someone decided to try this but............
This idea of transforming Carriers into capital logistics ships with limited firepower is a direct contradiction to what has been taught in every naval school for the last century. In the real world, capital ships (i.e. the Iowa Class Battleship and Nimitz Class Carrier for the U.S. Navy, the Queen Elizabeth Class of the U.K. and the Bismark Class of Germany in WWII) act as the centerpiece of naval fleets. The reason for this is simple to the extreme:
THE CAPITAL SHIP IS THE ONE BEST SUITED TO THE PROJECTION OF COMBAT POWER!
Capital ships exist to project power, to force your enemies to adapt to the fact that a massive amount of firepower is arrayed against them. Capital ships are, for the most part, unable to act alone however. Look at the U.S. Navy Carrier Battle Group. Each Carrier of the U.S. Navy is escorted at all times while at see by Ticonderoga Class Missile Cruisers for missile defense, frigates and destroyers for anti-submarine defense, and fleet replenishment vessels to keep consumable stores aboard the carrier up. Why the massive number of escorts? Simple, the capital ship is unable to do EVERYTHING itself.
The same is true of EVE Capital Ships for the most part. A single Dreadnought or Carrier operating alone is a formidable target to be sure, but at the same time it is vulnerable to a group of smaller ships. Carriers are better able to defend themselves from gangs due to the large drone bays allowing them to carry numerous different types of drones, but at the same time, capital ships can be locked down and destroyed from a capital killing gang. Dreadnoughts, like the Battleships of our Real Life Navies, have issues tracking and destroying a large number of smaller, more manueverable ships.
Where does that leave us? Simple. EVE Capital Ships, with the exception of the Moros (please fix that drone bonus), operate most efficiently while supported by other smaller ships. Super-capital motherships and titans face the same problems. Can a mothership operate for a solo pirate in lowsec? Certainly. But at the same time I recall reading that the first mothership to be destroyed in lowsec occurred a few weeks ago. Capital Ships are supposed to project power for your corporation or alliance, not support a fleet of small ships. Naval Doctorine has taught for over a century that the centerpiece of the fleet is the capital ship, to project combat power in the most efficient way possible.
|
Blood Ghost
Occam's Razor Combine
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:30:00 -
[703]
Gave up reading after the fourth page, I know whatÆs been said below has been mentioned before but I just wanted to add my voice to it.
______________________________________________________
All I see is more reason to NOT bring a carrier to the front line.
If I can not use my stronger locking strength to take control of my fighters and order them all on one target I see no reason to move beyond the safety of POS gun range.
All the time spent on skills, training and ISK and I have to sit next to a POS? Doing anything else is to risk losing all the DPS you would be adding to the fleet along with a multi-billion ISK ship.
Support? Use logistic ships, cheaper and they donÆt paint a big red lag filled bullÆs-eye on the screen.
Not Impressed
|
Snakebloke
Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:32:00 -
[704]
Originally by: Patch86 The fact that every major Capship owner in the game is in here complaining tells me that its probably a good move
Seriously though, I don't buy the whole "I trained 6 months for it, I SHOULD be invincible!" argument. Capital ships take a long time to train and cost a fair amount, yes. But that doesn't necessarily mean they should simply be the next "better ship". Thats exactly the thing CCP have been trying to avoid with T2 BSs.
The trend at the moment seems to be that as more and more people become capital capable, more and more capital blobs are being used. And this makes it more and more useless bringing non-capitals to a fleet fight at all. Not that I'm saying non-capitals will ever be truly useless, since a large enough group of anything can beat a small enough group of anything else, and the laws of the game mean that 1 carrier < 1 carrier + 1 battleship. But still, a 50 strong fleet of carriers, dreads and supercaps is a pretty pointless target to any non-capital opponent.
And is that really the direction EVE wants to go? A place where only 1 year veterans can even think of competing in 0.0, and everyone else should stay in Empire until they've ground out the mandatory skill set? I thought the whole beauty of EVE was that every single ship, right down to the T1 frigates, had a legitimate role in serious competition. Carriers and Dreads and such need to have a purpose that is legitimately worth more than a billion iskies, but isn't a one-way trip to solopwntown.
The Blog's suggested change is that their DPS remains as high as it is now, it's tank remains the same, they stay the same speed, price, and keep all their bonuses, but that now you need to fly with some friends to use their full potential. And since everything in cap ship design to date (cyno as a means of travel, and siege/triage 10 minute immobility as examples) tries to make the ships reliant on support fleets for use, I'd say that this is at least a good opening suggestion.
I see what your getting at and i agree, i dont want eve to be come a big capital slugfest, but i still do not think this is the way to go about it. I am far more inclined to go on the negative side of this suggestion as i have kept playing eve with the intention of getting a carrier. now if this change comes into effect, i feel that one would not be worth the investment. If you want to make them more useless like this then fine, but virtually noone will use them.
AS far as logistics is concerned, jump frieghters? rorquals? why use a carrier or mother ship....
and as far as helping others, why get a carrier with a triage module when you can get a gang of 5/6 obelisks/guardians and be far more effective... it doesnt make sense.
------------------------
Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed filesize of 24000 bytes -Rauth Kivaro ([email protected])
|
Telorast
Caldari AWE Corporation
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:33:00 -
[705]
Originally by: CCP Wrangler But seriously, the reason we want to implement something like this is that we feel that capital ships are being used way too much as better-than-battleships-at-killing-stuff ships, when we in fact think that they should be used more as the-ships-that-keep-other-ships-alive-and-provide-them-with-additional-firepower ships.
Why change that? When the capitals are finally balanced.
It's seriously too late to change the role of a carrier. Or at least if you change them you need to add another everyday capital fighting ship that fills the role carriers are now used as.
|
Sjoor
S.A.S Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:33:00 -
[706]
So you want ms to be low sec smartbomb gankers, or sit next to forcefield in pos assigning fighters.
Who would take a MS to frontline when you can do the same with a cheapass logistics ship. I rather have 10 logistics ships in station and grab 10 in a fight than use a MS that can only do the damage of a BS.
If you think to much fighters are around, change the fighters, make the ship bonus 80% bonus to drone and fighter damage. increase hitpoints by 80% per lvl. Carriers should get a 40% bonus. Basicly every1 still has 5 drones but they do the damage of the original 20. or 10 (maybe tweak the numbers a little, not doing math on sunday evening. of course the same for the use of normal drones. Kinda crappy to turn carriers and ms into logistics ships with insane hitpoints but no damage output.
If this will happen, you won't see MS on the frontline anymore besides low sec smartbombing MS pirates.
And for the logistics role... the nice module takes away drone control, so the bull**** about controlling less drones cause you need to fill in a logistic role... triage module: -100% to max active drone modifier. it's already ingame..
I see this whole change in the line need for speed. Every1 knows that 4 ms in a fleetbattle launching 20 fighters each creates huge lag. Let's face that problem and not rename it in some ****ty way about a role change.
As a finish:
Aeon: Ships like the Aeon have been with the Empire for a long time. They have remained a mainstay of Amarr expansion as, hopeful for a new beginning beyond the blasted horizon, whole cities of settlers sojourn from their time-worn homesteads to try their luck on infant worlds. The Aeon represents the largest ship of its kind in the history of the Empire, capable of functioning as a mobile citadel in addition to fielding powerful armaments. (note that it does not say, bring a little damage and delegate 3 times a little damage)
Greets Sjoor ----
Remove aggro reset on jump, remove secure can concord flagging |
Yazoul Samaiel
Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:34:00 -
[707]
Originally by: Blind Man awesome changes guys, don't listen to the whiners here. everyone knows it needs to be done and anyone who says otherwise is just angry that their pwnmobiles got taken away
Do you actualy play this game or the time u spend in low sec ganking has diminished what ever IQ you got left ?
A Carrier is hardly a pwnmobile if anyone with a sense tries to fight it how ever turning it to the same fire power as a t1 bs in the name of "Balance" is as dumb as your post along with ur low sec buddy le skunk .
TBH the last streak of nerfs CCP has been doing is just going into the direction of nerfign veteran plays and taking fun out of the advanced area of the game just coz some whiners cant deal with the fact that there are ppl who have been playing for years and have invested a lot to get such advantages.
|
Marco Marques
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:34:00 -
[708]
I spent a bunch of time training for the carrier, then spent another bunch training the fighters up and then spent another bunch getting the jump drive skills up and now they're doing this to us? I guess I'l just leave the game if they implement this. Carriers are weak as it is and they want to nerf it further? No way
|
Cosmos Elf
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:35:00 -
[709]
RIP BoB!
I for one welcome our new dev supported goon overlords. All hail the blob. --
|
KillinVillin
Synergy. Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:35:00 -
[710]
Originally by: Crimsonjade might possibly the worst idea ever ccp.
you: What we want is pretty basic: We want to make fighter wielding capital ships more reliant on their support fleet and less of a direct nber deathbringer.
me: not sure what game your playing but fly a carrier in pvp once pls before you tell me its a uber deathbringer
you :Well, we have an idea, and before you go ballistic remember that this is an idea and weære still working on it
me : heard ford and GM are going to make conbustable cars that double as bbq's, but they at least don't advertise the fact
you: Not only do we want to limit the amount of fighters you can launch, but also the amount of drones! Yes, we want to limit carriers and motherships just like other ships, i.e. they should only be able to field 5 regular drones at any given time
me: im speechless i mean truly WTF do want the carrier to be now? a logistics ship?
after 4 years in eve i really truly dislike this idea INTENSLY enough to question my staying here if we have to nerf a ship class so badly its completly non useful unless we get a gang to support it. and its not excatly a titan ya know. it cant DD and take out its close in enemys.
seriously i think your headed in the wrong direction here. completely wrong direction
i more for you guys figuring out a way to lessen the bandwith the drones use, or something else.whatever your trying to do,this isnt the way.
this is way to drastic to even be looked at seriously imo
Thank's you put it nicely, I would have just blown a gasket if no one pointed out the obvious. A Glory Hole Dominix :) Err... Glorified Dominix. Here i thought they were giving us the Ultimate logistic support ship in the game.
But wait there's more here's 5 Drones that you can satisfy your thirst with. Let's remind you that it's just another drone boat. Is it lag? A MotherShip ship's might make you lag? It's a MotherShip Not just "Anothership".
Would you like to buy "Anothership" @12-15b. Most drone pilot's would kill for more drones. People buy alt's so they can control 10 drones... In the end, if it's lag just say it and stop Jerkin my Drone.
|
|
Cadiz
Caldari No Quarter. Vae Victis.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:35:00 -
[711]
Triage mode is really quite terrible unless you're repping POSes in perfect safety. I wish people would stop mentioning it, because I don't know any combat carrier pilot who even bothers with fitting one except as an emergency "well, maybe I can survive for a few minutes extra until help arrives" button - and even then there are usually far more appealing things to fit in those highs, like smartbombs to help scare off small support. ------ Director, No Quarter "There is no problem that cannot be solved by the judicious application of violence." |
Eternal Fate
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:35:00 -
[712]
Originally by: Yazoul Samaiel
Originally by: Blind Man awesome changes guys, don't listen to the whiners here. everyone knows it needs to be done and anyone who says otherwise is just angry that their pwnmobiles got taken away
Do you actualy play this game or the time u spend in low sec ganking has diminished what ever IQ you got left ?
A Carrier is hardly a pwnmobile if anyone with a sense tries to fight it how ever turning it to the same fire power as a t1 bs in the name of "Balance" is as dumb as your post along with ur low sec buddy le skunk .
TBH the last streak of nerfs CCP has been doing is just going into the direction of nerfign veteran plays and taking fun out of the advanced area of the game just coz some whiners cant deal with the fact that there are ppl who have been playing for years and have invested a lot to get such advantages.
I fully agree and tbqh imo you need your eyes checking if you think this is a good idea.
|
Pallidum Treponema
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:42:00 -
[713]
To reiterate: Carriers are NOT support ships. They are CAPITAL ships. They are supposed to project force.
Titans project force by the ability to use its doomsday device to annihilate support fleets. Dreadnoughts project force by the ability to enter siege mode and deal massive amounts of damage. Carriers and motherships project force by the ability to launch huge number of drones and fighters.
The way I envision a fighter is a capital ship with huge hangars and drone bays. A capital ship built entirely to project force by means of launching hordes of these small craft. This is exactly why carriers today have the ability to launch 10-15 fighters, and motherships 20-25. This ability make them unique.
Today, carriers can be used in a support role if desired. This support role means that they are able to sit back in a safe location - such as by a friendly POS - and delegate control of the fighters to various other ships. They are also able to repair shield and armor should anyone require it.
HOWEVER, carriers also have the ability to be used agressively, meaning that players will take their carriers to the frontlines. The frontline carrier takes a bigger risk of getting destroyed, but in exchange has more control over its drones and fighters. They are no longer required to rely on their gangmates to handle their fighters for them, but can manage them on their own.
This, in my opinion, is exactly how carriers should be. Carriers are already very fragile, for capital ships, and using them on the frontlines DOES involve a rather significant amount of risk. I don't have the stats to prove this, but I'm quite sure that the numbers of dead carriers have increased recently simply because they are used more agressively. This is good for eve, as it creates a bigger economy among capital ships and give the players a sense of achievement.
The very concept of a carrier means that it's a powerful tool of war. It's not supposed to be a mobile repair platform. If that was its task, it'd no longer be a carrier.
Keep carriers like they are, and fix the real issues instead. If you want a ship that's used for logistics, then create a new ship instead. Don't change the role of a ship that's been around for I don't know how long. -- MC's Swedish squidshark
|
breadcat
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:42:00 -
[714]
Edited by: breadcat on 21/10/2007 20:42:40
Originally by: Patch86 The fact that every major Capship owner in the game is in here complaining tells me that its probably a good move
Seriously though, I don't buy the whole "I trained 6 months for it, I SHOULD be invincible!" argument. Capital ships take a long time to train and cost a fair amount, yes. But that doesn't necessarily mean they should simply be the next "better ship". Thats exactly the thing CCP have been trying to avoid with T2 BSs.
The trend at the moment seems to be that as more and more people become capital capable, more and more capital blobs are being used. And this makes it more and more useless bringing non-capitals to a fleet fight at all. Not that I'm saying non-capitals will ever be truly useless, since a large enough group of anything can beat a small enough group of anything else, and the laws of the game mean that 1 carrier < 1 carrier + 1 battleship. But still, a 50 strong fleet of carriers, dreads and supercaps is a pretty pointless target to any non-capital opponent.
And is that really the direction EVE wants to go? A place where only 1 year veterans can even think of competing in 0.0, and everyone else should stay in Empire until they've ground out the mandatory skill set? I thought the whole beauty of EVE was that every single ship, right down to the T1 frigates, had a legitimate role in serious competition. Carriers and Dreads and such need to have a purpose that is legitimately worth more than a billion iskies, but isn't a one-way trip to solopwntown.
The Blog's suggested change is that their DPS remains as high as it is now, it's tank remains the same, they stay the same speed, price, and keep all their bonuses, but that now you need to fly with some friends to use their full potential. And since everything in cap ship design to date (cyno as a means of travel, and siege/triage 10 minute immobility as examples) tries to make the ships reliant on support fleets for use, I'd say that this is at least a good opening suggestion.
Yea, i agree, actually many people hate those cap/fighter blobs you see nowadays and dont wanna play "capitals online". Imho CCP found a good way to deal with the problem.
|
Arctur Gestator
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:42:00 -
[715]
Originally by: Recalesence Who wants my stuff.
me _________________________
Adapt or STFU |
Inturist
Nuclear Reactor Inc INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:43:00 -
[716]
Originally by: Strategos
Originally by: XoPhyte Edited by: XoPhyte on 21/10/2007 20:14:58
Originally by: Strategos
Actually, it does. I take it you've never seen a capital blob consisting of 30+ carriers and 5+ moms? Making them only be able to field 5 drones THEMSELVES reduces the number of drones on the field in capitals blobs by a lot. This now forces carrier/mom pilots to assign fighters to their support fleet (meaning they are no longer the offensive weapon they are today) instead of roasting a BS by themselves in a couple seconds.
Translation:
I have not invested the time, effort or isk for a carrier myself and therefore they should be nerfed for everyone else.
Grow up Xo. Carriers and Motherships won't be the offensive weapons you use them for anymore. They were never meant to be offensive weapons in the first place. They will now depend on a support fleet to work at their full potential, which is how they were always meant to be.
Dude , get a clue
Guy told about TIME SPENDED TO TRAIN DAMN SKILLS - 1 YEAR !!!!!!!! , ALOT OF ISKS , and u ******* saying some crap . gheeez
/flame off --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Hipsu
Rosvosektori
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:43:00 -
[717]
Right, why dont you just remove the whole dronebay while ur at it, as it seems carriers are just glorified haulers with jumpdrives and they shouldt be able to use remote repping modules either thats clearly overpowered. Hey i know, why dont we get rid of capitals all together and roll back the db couple years too, should make eve fun again no?
|
FLAME 61
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:43:00 -
[718]
where in real life You see carrier with 5 plane? Carrier is NOT support ship! BS and other class of ships support FOR carrier and defent them
|
yieasase
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:43:00 -
[719]
Welcome to WOW dont forget to sort the skills out on the market. Move them to capital support vessel skillbook and uber capital support vessel and Transportable-bumpable-stargate. Rename the fighters to Winnie-the-Pooth. The new name for a Drone-control-unit sounds like "bear-control-unit" or "dont fly alone with a freighter unit" or "carebear-control-unit". The correct name for a Carrier is now: "i cant do anything alone". It must be the new "need for speed-project" cause you need now 1 cyno to jump, 1 for ermergency and three dudes for the rest a uber capital freighter support ship. A idea is a idea but doesnt mean its a great idea.... Sure the vessels part in a fleet is nearly same, but i think the next step is a "fighter-control-unit" with this unit youre are able to control one fighter on a non-capital-freighter-vessel
|
Han Horensii
Res Publica R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:43:00 -
[720]
Edited by: Han Horensii on 21/10/2007 20:44:25 Baun you just made an awsome post here
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=618279&page=29#868
/signed and resigned
|
|
FLAME 61
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:44:00 -
[721]
and maybe i dont want fly on BlackOps :)
|
Gyle
Caldari Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:44:00 -
[722]
Originally by: Strategos
Originally by: XoPhyte Edited by: XoPhyte on 21/10/2007 20:14:58
Originally by: Strategos
Actually, it does. I take it you've never seen a capital blob consisting of 30+ carriers and 5+ moms? Making them only be able to field 5 drones THEMSELVES reduces the number of drones on the field in capitals blobs by a lot. This now forces carrier/mom pilots to assign fighters to their support fleet (meaning they are no longer the offensive weapon they are today) instead of roasting a BS by themselves in a couple seconds.
Translation:
I have not invested the time, effort or isk for a carrier myself and therefore they should be nerfed for everyone else.
Grow up Xo. Carriers and Motherships won't be the offensive weapons you use them for anymore. They were never meant to be offensive weapons in the first place. They will now depend on a support fleet to work at their full potential, which is how they were always meant to be.
Your wrong. they were always meant to be offensive otherwise they wouldnt be that way. delegating was just an add-on
|
Inturist
Nuclear Reactor Inc INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:45:00 -
[723]
Originally by: Recalesence Who wants my stuff.
Is there any exzotic dancers ? if yes - Then YES PLEASE --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Arctur Gestator
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:45:00 -
[724]
Carrier was in my skill plan but now i can train someting else. What about velator it can't be nerfed _________________________
Adapt or STFU |
Snakebloke
Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:46:00 -
[725]
Originally by: Cailais First off, Im not a carrier or mom pilot, Ive fought them -never flown them (except on 'geddon day ).
Id suggest a moment of pause. Let's see what impact (if any) the T2 Cov Op BS and Heavy Dictors have to Fleet Warfare.
My feeling is, the best way for a Carrier to provide support is to make it act more like a true Carrier; allow it to act as a "Jump in point" for smaller ship classes like Frigates, Intys, and AFs. A mobile cyno geny if you like. An FC could then call in a frigate swarm from several jumps away, rather than rely on the current 'fighter blob'.
Moms would act in a similiar fashion, but for larger classes of vessel - namely Destroyer, Dictor, Cruiser and HAC/Hdict.
But like I said, Id suggest a moments pause.
C.
Actually Cailais i think that sounds like a very good idea. this would make carriers more so of a target for enemy fleets
with this there may be more of an emphasis on support gangs to protect the carrier. i think this is really good... nice one ------------------------
Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed filesize of 24000 bytes -Rauth Kivaro ([email protected])
|
Strategos
Genco Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:46:00 -
[726]
Originally by: Gyle your wrong. carriers and motherships were meant to be the way they are otherwise quiet simply they wouldn be like that.
Yah, I'm wrong because you don't like the changes. I also like your approach to balance.
"Ah look ma! I can kill anything with one click of the mouse on my new EW frig! I guess if it was never ment to be like this CCP wouldn't have made it this way! I will cry if they nerf it!"
QQ more, the tears taste sweet.
Where are those guys in Evol who tell everyone to Adapt or STFU? You know, the corp in charge of BoB, the one Molle is in? MC have used that line a couple times as well. I guess only when something changes that is good for them and others are whining about it to they get the notion to say it. ---Sig--- Sig removed, not appropriate for the forum. Please contact [email protected] for more info (including a copy of your picture!) -Pirlouit
|
Cadiz
Caldari No Quarter. Vae Victis.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:47:00 -
[727]
Edited by: Cadiz on 21/10/2007 20:52:42
Originally by: Arctur Gestator Carrier was in my skill plan but now i can train someting else. What about velator it can't be nerfed
I dunno, man. That drone bay on the Velator makes it uber compared to the other newb ships...they might go and remove it.
As for carriers making BSes obsolete in front-line actions...yes, because having fighters fly 150 - 180km to the hostile fleet is definitely an excellent way to get lots of kills in a fleet action, especially when every ship out there with a sensor dampener is doing everything in its power to savagely beat your lock range into the single digits and the enemy light support is hungrily lunging after those tasty 18mil-a-pop buckets of scrap. BSes are still the cornerstones of the fleet, and until they implement some other ship class with superior range & alpha strike capabilities that remains fully insurable & easy to replace, that's not going to change.
I'd honestly be fine with moving the drone control amount bonuses being moved over to drone damage bonuses and allowing only one or two fighters to be delegated per pilot (the carrier can still control the full 5 itself), as that would deal with the main problem w/ mass carrier usage, that being heavy lag. ------ Director, No Quarter "There is no problem that cannot be solved by the judicious application of violence." |
Ogul
Caldari ZiTek Deepspace Explorations Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:49:00 -
[728]
How about fixing the broken stuff before breaking any more of it?
It's not like carriers aren't already sitting ducks when separated from their support fleet, you know?
It's not like carriers aren't used as logistic platforms because people like to do damage with them, it's just that trying to keep other ships alive is made extremely pointless by LAG.
Still not much harm done, because the most important role of carriers is being jump freighters right now anyway.
--- This is a war declaration, issued from your alt corp. It is used to gank people in high sec. |
Inturist
Nuclear Reactor Inc INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:49:00 -
[729]
Originally by: Cadiz
Originally by: Arctur Gestator Carrier was in my skill plan but now i can train someting else. What about velator it can't be nerfed
I dunno, man. That drone bay on the Velator makes it uber compared to the other newb ships...they might go and remove it.
SIGNED , nerf VElator , it;s solo-noob PWNMOBILE --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
LancerSix
Dirty Deeds Corp. Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:49:00 -
[730]
Edited by: LancerSix on 21/10/2007 20:52:35 To see the problem, you need to look at precedents. Star Wars Galaxies did the same thing to their veterans in an effort to appease the whining forum noobs, and where are they now? Well, most of us EVE veterans used to be veterans there . So the fact is, by nerfing the endgame, you screw your veterans, and therefore screw everyone. Bad move.
And no, I don't own a carrier.
|
|
Nagatok
AWE Corporation Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:51:00 -
[731]
to quote a phrase..."DONT FIX SOMETHING THAT ISN'T BROKEN FOOLS!!!"
if your so goddamn annoyed at motherships being in 0.1-0.4 sec then code into the game that a supercapital is unable to jump to those points while a normal carrier can still do it...and i KNOW you can do that....what your suggestion is through plain ignorance and lack knowing how the player base feels aswell as to add another point you've wasted all our times and if you do this we want our SP's back...a carrier is SUPPOSED to overpower a goddamn BS it costs TEN TIMES MORE....can you read that? TEN TIMES MORE ISK so effectively it should be TEN BATTLESHIPS yeh?...whereas you could say that the mothership is UNDERPOWERED at the moment...i mean it costs how much? 10-15bil? so at minimum it should be the equivalent of ONE HUNDRED BATTLESHIPS. do you devs ever think things through before you do things? seems not. PROGENITOR/INTREPID CROSSING pilot recruitment officer |
Cyan Nuevo
Dudes In Crazy Killing Ships
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:51:00 -
[732]
I like it, even though I'm in a small corp and my plans of using a carrier in small gangs are discouraged a bit. --- Proud Amarr pilot.
|
Gyle
Caldari Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:52:00 -
[733]
Originally by: Strategos Edited by: Strategos on 21/10/2007 20:47:29
Originally by: Gyle your wrong. carriers and motherships were meant to be the way they are otherwise quiet simply they wouldn be like that.
Yah, I'm wrong because you don't like the changes. I also like your approach to balance.
"Ah look ma! I can kill anything with one click of the mouse on my new EW frig! I guess if it was never ment to be like this CCP wouldn't have made it this way! I will cry if they nerf it!"
QQ more, the tears taste sweet.
Where are those guys in Evol who tell everyone to Adapt or STFU? You know, the corp in charge of BoB, the one Molle is in? MC have used that line a couple times as well. I guess only when something changes that is good for them and others are whining about it do they get the notion to say it.
I wont have to dude. after 99% of the people get through with this ccp will accept that it was a dum idea since All of the people that are paying our wages hate it. my point is since you dont fly em you dont understand enough about them and their role. but the fact that your commenting on somthing that you dont understand will only have detrimental effects on the game. It is a question aof balance. and just becuase your new this does not give you the right to fight on a fully even playing field with someone who has been playing for 4 years, no matter what peeps think ccp stands for... that aint it.
|
Amaron Ghant
Caldari Ascent of Ages Dark Matter Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:52:00 -
[734]
Not much point getting bent out of shape tbh, and yes I am a carrier pilot.
This WILL happen. Look at all the other times a "rebalance" has been considered by CCP. The Players throw a collective fit, argue till they are blue in the face, and the nerf bat is still swung.
Might as well face it, if you've been in the game long enough to be a decent carrier pilot then you are not the demographic CCP is interested in. There's more non carrier pilots out there than carrier pilots, so suck it up boys and girls, it's coming.
WTS carrier, 1 owner, slightly dented from repeated collisions with a nerfbat.
Not bitter, just dont give a rats backside anymore.
|
Grapez
Advanced Security And Asset Protection
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:54:00 -
[735]
Just replying to say "no."
|
Baun
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:54:00 -
[736]
Originally by: Clavius XIV
Each class of ship should have a role. There should be a reason to bring a BS over a carrier besides isk, and skilltime. With this change there will be. Want firesupport? Bring BS (or dreads for capital battles). Want defense/logistics? Bring carriers/Moms.
We could think in this simplistic and incorrect manner OR we could put our thinking caps on.
Q: What are the kinds of ships that carriers/motherships actually can repair in the middle of a fleet battle? A: Other carriers/motherships.
Q: If there are no carriers/motherships on the frontlines and nothing else has a large enough HP buffer to be remote repped in a fleet battle, will there be anything for carriers/motherships to repair on the frontlines? A: No
Q: If there is nothing for carriers/motherships to repair on the front lines and they can assign their fighters from outside a POS, will they ever be on the front lines at all? A: No
Q: If carriers/motherships are not on the front lines then can they be "front-line logistics ships"? A: No.
There is a reason that existing pure logistics ships are not used in fleet battles. YOU CANNOT REPAIR PRIMARY TARGETS FAST ENOUGH, THEY DON'T HAVE ENOUGH HP. This same reason will be why carriers/motherships aren't used in fleet battles.
Please people, start thinking.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Inflexible
Rytiri Lva
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:55:00 -
[737]
Originally by: Arctur Gestator What about velator it can't be nerfed
Baseless optimism
|
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:55:00 -
[738]
Originally by: Strategos Edited by: Strategos on 21/10/2007 20:47:29
Originally by: Gyle your wrong. carriers and motherships were meant to be the way they are otherwise quiet simply they wouldn be like that.
Yah, I'm wrong because you don't like the changes. I also like your approach to balance.
"Ah look ma! I can kill anything with one click of the mouse on my new EW frig! I guess if it was never ment to be like this CCP wouldn't have made it this way! I will cry if they nerf it!"
QQ more, the tears taste sweet.
Where are those guys in Evol who tell everyone to Adapt or STFU? You know, the corp in charge of BoB, the one Molle is in? MC have used that line a couple times as well. I guess only when something changes that is good for them and others are whining about it do they get the notion to say it.
You seem to have our philosophy in Bob incorrect. We adapt to current game mechanics and there are plenty of ways to kill carriers (take a look at our killboards sometime, we have killed plenty of yours). However game mechanics don't need to be changed as a broad stroke when it doesnt address any of the root causes of problems in eve (IE, motherships terrorizing low sec, which one WAS killed in low sec recently).
So don't feed me the "adapt" line. A lot of players in Eve did adapt by training and taking a lot of time to earn the isk for a carrier. You would rahter the game be changed to save you the same time and effort of having to do the same.
|
Captain BushDog
Arcana Imperii Ltd. Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:59:00 -
[739]
Plain and simple:
"Worst Idea Ever"
|
LordVodka
Earned In Blood Black Sun Cartel
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:00:00 -
[740]
No offense but this is one of the dumbest idea's around, look at nidhoggur archon and chimera, if we use a standard 10 drones, with my skills i get only 900 dps, with max skills i can get 1000 dps. O wait theres more! My fighters go down in about 1 second to concentrated volleys, so i can lose 100% of my dps in under a minute in a fight. Now lets switch over to a megathron, wait this ship cost 90 million isk, 30 mil to fit and can do 1100+ dps with ions, and over 1200+ with neutrons. Not only does this ship start with a much higher dps it can never lose all of it's dps unless it is killed.
So why nerf a 800-1 bil isk ship, that takes a billion isk in skills, and 500 million isk to fit, that still does worse dps then a bs can. Sure a mothership can killl a bs in a couple seconds, but to be fair the ship costs 30 bil, and as x13 proved to us they go down in 2 minutes themselves, not exactly as long as you'd think a 30 bil ship would last in a fight, specailly since they are another 20 bil to faction fit.
I beg you to be reasonable here, carriers drones are to weak to be considered as permant dps they die far to quickly and I believe this nerf is vastly unjustified.
If the nerf does go through in hte end despite my crys for ccp to see reason, then at least boost fighters to a affordable build cost cause they die way to easy, and consider tossing in a t2 fighter that would cost the current fighter price...
|
|
Han Horensii
Res Publica R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:01:00 -
[741]
Originally by: LordVodka No offense but this is one of the dumbest idea's around, look at nidhoggur archon and chimera, if we use a standard 10 drones, with my skills i get only 900 dps, with max skills i can get 1000 dps. O wait theres more! My fighters go down in about 1 second to concentrated volleys, so i can lose 100% of my dps in under a minute in a fight. Now lets switch over to a megathron, wait this ship cost 90 million isk, 30 mil to fit and can do 1100+ dps with ions, and over 1200+ with neutrons. Not only does this ship start with a much higher dps it can never lose all of it's dps unless it is killed.
So why nerf a 800-1 bil isk ship, that takes a billion isk in skills, and 500 million isk to fit, that still does worse dps then a bs can. Sure a mothership can killl a bs in a couple seconds, but to be fair the ship costs 30 bil, and as x13 proved to us they go down in 2 minutes themselves, not exactly as long as you'd think a 30 bil ship would last in a fight, specailly since they are another 20 bil to faction fit.
I beg you to be reasonable here, carriers drones are to weak to be considered as permant dps they die far to quickly and I believe this nerf is vastly unjustified.
If the nerf does go through in hte end despite my crys for ccp to see reason, then at least boost fighters to a affordable build cost cause they die way to easy, and consider tossing in a t2 fighter that would cost the current fighter price...
/signed
|
Inturist
Nuclear Reactor Inc INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:02:00 -
[742]
Edited by: Inturist on 21/10/2007 21:02:22 POST Nr 904
BAd idea once again --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Strategos
Genco Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:02:00 -
[743]
Originally by: Gyle
Originally by: Strategos Edited by: Strategos on 21/10/2007 20:47:29
Originally by: Gyle your wrong. carriers and motherships were meant to be the way they are otherwise quiet simply they wouldn be like that.
Yah, I'm wrong because you don't like the changes. I also like your approach to balance.
"Ah look ma! I can kill anything with one click of the mouse on my new EW frig! I guess if it was never ment to be like this CCP wouldn't have made it this way! I will cry if they nerf it!"
QQ more, the tears taste sweet.
Where are those guys in Evol who tell everyone to Adapt or STFU? You know, the corp in charge of BoB, the one Molle is in? MC have used that line a couple times as well. I guess only when something changes that is good for them and others are whining about it do they get the notion to say it.
I wont have to dude. after 99% of the people get through with this ccp will accept that it was a dum idea since All of the people that are paying our wages hate it. my point is since you dont fly em you dont understand enough about them and their role. but the fact that your commenting on somthing that you dont understand will only have detrimental effects on the game. It is a question aof balance. and just becuase your new this does not give you the right to fight on a fully even playing field with someone who has been playing for 4 years, no matter what peeps think ccp stands for... that aint it.
I am not ******* new you idiot. I have been playing Eve for over 2 years. Get that threw your thick, brainless skull.
You're right, it is a question of balance. Right now players are using Carriers in more offensive roles then CCP would like, hence the change. No one knows what other changes could be coming to carriers in the form of buffs that will go along with the decrease in drone control numbers for the carrier pilot himself. All you people are doing is crying and *****ing about how awful this change is when no one knows what else will change with it.
They could get a better tank. They could get better bonus for remote reps. Triage could be getting a buff to make it a little more convenient to use.
This change is good for the balance of the game, and bad for those who think just because it costs more and takes more time to train it should be an uber killing machine. ---Sig--- Sig removed, not appropriate for the forum. Please contact [email protected] for more info (including a copy of your picture!) -Pirlouit
|
Frantico
Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:03:00 -
[744]
all i have to say is what a bloody stupid idea why would anyone pay 25b for a sship that can do the same as a ship for 600m and the whole point of the carrier/mom is to battle the bs's and FYI as it is now even 5 bs's can killa carrier if there right setup what the hell even 2 curses can kill a carrier...
Laaaammmee u do it the market will be flooded with ppl selling there moms and we will se 55 new titans on the field instead -
- |
Zurtur
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:03:00 -
[745]
Originally by: LordVodka No offense but this is one of the dumbest idea's around, look at nidhoggur archon and chimera, if we use a standard 10 drones, with my skills i get only 900 dps, with max skills i can get 1000 dps. O wait theres more! My fighters go down in about 1 second to concentrated volleys, so i can lose 100% of my dps in under a minute in a fight. Now lets switch over to a megathron, wait this ship cost 90 million isk, 30 mil to fit and can do 1100+ dps with ions, and over 1200+ with neutrons. Not only does this ship start with a much higher dps it can never lose all of it's dps unless it is killed.
So why nerf a 800-1 bil isk ship, that takes a billion isk in skills, and 500 million isk to fit, that still does worse dps then a bs can. Sure a mothership can killl a bs in a couple seconds, but to be fair the ship costs 30 bil, and as x13 proved to us they go down in 2 minutes themselves, not exactly as long as you'd think a 30 bil ship would last in a fight, specailly since they are another 20 bil to faction fit.
I beg you to be reasonable here, carriers drones are to weak to be considered as permant dps they die far to quickly and I believe this nerf is vastly unjustified.
If the nerf does go through in hte end despite my crys for ccp to see reason, then at least boost fighters to a affordable build cost cause they die way to easy, and consider tossing in a t2 fighter that would cost the current fighter price...
Listen to the man...
Z -
Back in sig designs! |
Cailais
Amarr VITOC Fang Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:03:00 -
[746]
Originally by: Snakebloke
Originally by: Cailais First off, Im not a carrier or mom pilot, Ive fought them -never flown them (except on 'geddon day ).
Id suggest a moment of pause. Let's see what impact (if any) the T2 Cov Op BS and Heavy Dictors have to Fleet Warfare.
My feeling is, the best way for a Carrier to provide support is to make it act more like a true Carrier; allow it to act as a "Jump in point" for smaller ship classes like Frigates, Intys, and AFs. A mobile cyno geny if you like. An FC could then call in a frigate swarm from several jumps away, rather than rely on the current 'fighter blob'.
Moms would act in a similiar fashion, but for larger classes of vessel - namely Destroyer, Dictor, Cruiser and HAC/Hdict.
But like I said, Id suggest a moments pause.
C.
Actually Cailais i think that sounds like a very good idea. this would make carriers more so of a target for enemy fleets
with this there may be more of an emphasis on support gangs to protect the carrier. i think this is really good... nice one
Thanks, I should point out that a Carrier shouldnt just be a jump in/out point for other players (I doubt a carrier would be all that exciting to fly in that instance).
But lets say a Carrier can create multiple 'micro cynos' that a Frigate Class vessel could jump to. A Carrier would also I suggest have some anti-frigate weaponry (a fast tracking rapid fire turret system or module), and a more limited form of 'fighter support'. Perhaps a healthy doe of EW boosts to cause havoc amongst a hsotile fleet???
Think BSG and Im sure you get the rough idea. More of a Command Platform that projects force, than 'just' a damage dealer.
C.
- sig designer - eve mail |
Veng3ance
Prophets Of a Damned Universe
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:03:00 -
[747]
Edited by: Veng3ance on 21/10/2007 21:04:30 Terrible.
****en terrible!
Blaster Megathrons do the damage of carriers! OMFG fighters have a VERY hard time killing **** as is.
|
Lunas Feelgood
S.A.S Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:04:00 -
[748]
Alcohol and devs dont work very well together if you actually thinking about this idea.
EVE sucks more and more Picture Signature Your signature exceeds the 24000 byte limit allowed on the forums. -Darth Patches Image changed to link as you may only have 1 image in your signature. -Yipsilanti ([email protected])
|
Atomin
Institute Of Science
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:04:00 -
[749]
Who is ever think about it, shuld fired from CCP!! NOW
What u want?? If u make This Pls MAke The Followings too:
Titan not able to use Doomsday Weapons! Ishtar only can use simulty one drone! Hac are using weapons , only have one turret / launcher hardpoints! MAn , not enough the lag, u want to make a step to lots of ppl leave the EVE???? In that case , this is a good direction....
Lots of us Paid for CCP for playing with this , u made rules and now u want to destroy this rules???
Lot of moms carriers in low sec now??? WHy ??? Just because more of us spent years to become Capital pilot (like me too). And lots of us can now buy them... Why is it problem ?
Its Crazy......
|
Brigitte
S.A.S Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:04:00 -
[750]
wot a load od crap omg what next 50 bill ship should vapourise a poxy battleship in 5 seconds c'mon ffs , and you know that mother ships are not indestrctable youve all seen the kil mails just takes team work!!!!! why not just cut the drone ammount by half/and double the damage and while ur making adjustments to mother ships..why not fix the npc.jam/tracking disrupting/scrambleing..bug
|
|
Inturist
Nuclear Reactor Inc INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:04:00 -
[751]
Originally by: Strategos
Originally by: Gyle
Originally by: Strategos Edited by: Strategos on 21/10/2007 20:47:29
Originally by: Gyle your wrong. carriers and motherships were meant to be the way they are otherwise quiet simply they wouldn be like that.
Yah, I'm wrong because you don't like the changes. I also like your approach to balance.
"Ah look ma! I can kill anything with one click of the mouse on my new EW frig! I guess if it was never ment to be like this CCP wouldn't have made it this way! I will cry if they nerf it!"
QQ more, the tears taste sweet.
Where are those guys in Evol who tell everyone to Adapt or STFU? You know, the corp in charge of BoB, the one Molle is in? MC have used that line a couple times as well. I guess only when something changes that is good for them and others are whining about it do they get the notion to say it.
I wont have to dude. after 99% of the people get through with this ccp will accept that it was a dum idea since All of the people that are paying our wages hate it. my point is since you dont fly em you dont understand enough about them and their role. but the fact that your commenting on somthing that you dont understand will only have detrimental effects on the game. It is a question aof balance. and just becuase your new this does not give you the right to fight on a fully even playing field with someone who has been playing for 4 years, no matter what peeps think ccp stands for... that aint it.
I am not ******* new you idiot. I have been playing Eve for over 2 years. Get that threw your thick, brainless skull.
You're right, it is a question of balance. Right now players are using Carriers in more offensive roles then CCP would like, hence the change. No one knows what other changes could be coming to carriers in the form of buffs that will go along with the decrease in drone control numbers for the carrier pilot himself. All you people are doing is crying and *****ing about how awful this change is when no one knows what else will change with it.
They could get a better tank. They could get better bonus for remote reps. Triage could be getting a buff to make it a little more convenient to use.
This change is good for the balance of the game, and bad for those who think just because it costs more and takes more time to train it should be an uber killing machine.
Dude , i think u have too much dumb "firepower" , u need to be nerfed . --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Degarion Soth
Minmatar Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:04:00 -
[752]
Well just in case CCP ignores the public reaction I'll vote on the side of 'thanks but no thanks'
Time will tell if they ignore this outcry or not, if they do they'll be percieved as playing the the low skilled 'newbie' player-base (and i'm not specifically referring to the goonies - who have also stated this is a terrible idea).
This smacks a bit of reacting to the public image of eve (future sub-scribers if you will) that because you cant 'grind' 23 hours a day and skill up to match the established playerbase that its not worth joining eve. If this is the way Eve is changing (and I hope not) it will soon turn into a flavour-less bland space-mmorpg, and will loose what it is that makes eve truly great.
There must be soemthing for the playerbase to strive for - else whats the point?
|
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:05:00 -
[753]
Originally by: LordVodka and consider tossing in a t2 fighter that would cost the current fighter price...
I like the way you think!
|
Icome4u
Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:09:00 -
[754]
IBTL
Worst idea to date. Even worst that playing WoW! ______
Originally by: Vyger If I lose connection while walking around a station will my avatar run off in a random direction and go hide in a corner?
|
Dri Kulsane
Amarr Contraband Inc. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:09:00 -
[755]
Edited by: Dri Kulsane on 21/10/2007 21:14:17
Credit to Jin Entres!!! ------------------------------------------------------------------
|
GeneralD
Dragon's Rage Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:10:00 -
[756]
Bad Idea, A carrier should be able to defend itself. If CCP limits the number of fighters the carrier can launch then it should be allowed to mount Launchers or Turrets. If you invest a year of your time to acquire the skills on a carefully laid out development plan it is unacceptable to change the ground rules after the fact. As the average age of the Eve player base increases, players have higher skill points and thus will normally want fly larger more complex ships. When we were younger and had fewer skill points these kind of ôafter the factö modifications were a annoyance but now higher level skills simply require to much of an investment. I can think of several other options than just an across the board fighter nerf. Roll out a new skill the Jams fighters or add an EW module that limits band width or introduce some kind of interdiction sphere that attacking ships can deploy that limits fighter activity. All of these ideas modify game play by adding content rather than changing what has already been released. If CCP is going to continue with these kinds of major game play modifications then we should be allowed to Re Spec our characters to the new environment or they can simply reset the player data base and we all start over flying Kestrels.
Just my 2 cents worth GeneralD
|
DeadDuck
Amarr Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:12:00 -
[757]
Well the lag in fleet fights will go down by a lot ... so go for it
|
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar MASS HOMICIDE Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:12:00 -
[758]
Originally by: LordVodka No offense but this is one of the dumbest idea's around, look at nidhoggur archon and chimera, if we use a standard 10 drones, with my skills i get only 900 dps, with max skills i can get 1000 dps. O wait theres more! My fighters go down in about 1 second to concentrated volleys, so i can lose 100% of my dps in under a minute in a fight. Now lets switch over to a megathron, wait this ship cost 90 million isk, 30 mil to fit and can do 1100+ dps with ions, and over 1200+ with neutrons. Not only does this ship start with a much higher dps it can never lose all of it's dps unless it is killed.
So why nerf a 800-1 bil isk ship, that takes a billion isk in skills, and 500 million isk to fit, that still does worse dps then a bs can. Sure a mothership can killl a bs in a couple seconds, but to be fair the ship costs 30 bil, and as x13 proved to us they go down in 2 minutes themselves, not exactly as long as you'd think a 30 bil ship would last in a fight, specailly since they are another 20 bil to faction fit.
I beg you to be reasonable here, carriers drones are to weak to be considered as permant dps they die far to quickly and I believe this nerf is vastly unjustified.
If the nerf does go through in hte end despite my crys for ccp to see reason, then at least boost fighters to a affordable build cost cause they die way to easy, and consider tossing in a t2 fighter that would cost the current fighter price...
You really need someoen to explain? Ok lets go.
- MEgathron can do this dps at 5 km. What range can you do it with your drones? ahhh i tough so. - In the time it takes for you to loose 1 fighters against 1 Battheship the battleship isa lready dead. Fighters are only treatened if you are fighting with insuficient support (and that is what ccp want you to stop doing) - Increase the numbers to like 40 carriers then tell me what BSs can do against it? (on any believable numbers). EWven 100 BS woudl become smoke. -Aa your ship cost 1 Bil isk. My machariel also.... so by your logic I shoudl match a carrier.
On my opinion, the idea is great, jsut need to be adjusted. Mybe 5 is a too small number. And i think MS should be able to use more than carriers.
If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough |
Larsonist
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:12:00 -
[759]
Well then, where to start..
I do not post very much on the forums, but this latest, "we added it into the game but now we think they have gone to far" addition has brought me out of the shadows. Where does this end CCP? Please tell me where you, as a company, will stop adding things and then for the greater good rebalance? Tweaking is fine but for the love of all that is holy this has got to be the most amazing thing ive seen since 2004. We arent talking about a change in fighter dps. Nope. We arent talking about a tweak to some aspect of a interface. Nope Nope. We are talking about TOTALLY changing a vessels capabilities. If i, along with the rest of the community interested and in carriers, had known you planned on giving me a glorified hauler with a jump drive i would have already been in other ship classes.
If you MUST do something as totally moronic as this inorder to stop the lag/nerf carriers/whatever, then consider this alternative:
1. Only allow carriers to launch 5 fighters at a time. When carriers are on grid AND within 400kms of Field Commander(or whatever range you deem acceptable), ALL delegated fighters get a 10% dps boost and armor boost when delegated. On top of this, all fighters MUST have a standard damage bonus to compensate for the loss in 5-10 fighters for a carrier and 15-20 fighters for a mother ship. This achieves what you are wanting as far as reducing launched fighter numbers. This also achieves your desires for putting the carriers in the fight. To summarize, you are still giving carriers and moms their fire power but reducing, as you did with the drone launch nerf back in early 2006 or late 2005, the number of objects in space. Unfortunately, having 20 fighters in space is better than 5 tactically, even if both numbers are doing similar dps but this is the only way both sides could even be remotely happy. SOLO on the other hand, reduce fighter damage to -10% when launched solo for carriers and moms. I know i am going to be absolutely smashed and flamed for that, but its better than getting just 5 anyway. If i have to make a suggestion that would be relatively acceptable to most pilots, its the best i can come up with. It reduced their BBQ capability a bit, still keeps them at 5 fighters but does not make it so a carrier or mom is totally useless when caught alone. It also allows them to keep their status as decent large vessels to be feared.
2. for all the carebear nonadaptable whiners out there who get owned by Moms in low sec. If this blob of a blog is partly due to that, then here is a possible solution. Mom's need to be able to get into low sec period! Their 2.5 million m3 ship bay and logistics capability proves that. Their ewar imm. is questionable though for low sec. CCP you put them(supercaps) in game damn near invincible and you are slowly removing their power, go ahead and remove the ewar invincibility(or lower it a bit) for low sec traveling. This will make it so moms on gates will be just as powerful(damage wise almost) but yet vulnerable.
In summation..
Delegation idea is horrid i myself am not a Mom pilot but i do fly multiply caps. To voice concerns of others that are extremely valid, not only will you lose accounts to something like this, but you will lose respect from alot of players in cap ships and seeking them. I have played alot of MMO's. It is always better to reduce effectiveness of combat ships and characters than to boost them nonstop(asheron's call is a good example of a game that boosted nonstop instead of tweaking and reducing). So i applaud you guys for keeping ships incheck. Now, CHANGING ships so that they wont perform ANYTHING like they did before and making them useless compared to their isk cost is insane To all of those that use the "well isk doesnt matter compared to ship affectiveness" arguement. STFU You are just a filthy little carebears and have no grasp on game mechanics. |
Kagutsuchi
Elite Storm Enterprises
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:12:00 -
[760]
Its not just a bad idea, its a ******** idea.
Carriers and Motherships are too vulnerable if you remove the deterent that is a huge drone swarm.
Sure its better than a BS.... but hell, it isnt better than 10 BS which equates to the same in cost.
Deal with borked aspects of the game instead of messing around with stuff that isnt broken!! A freind by your side is like an army at your back. |
|
Brigitte
S.A.S Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:13:00 -
[761]
omg who is this guy zulupark? plz go back to the front desk seling tickets and let the old devs make the rules
|
Inturist
Nuclear Reactor Inc INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:13:00 -
[762]
I demand bring back TomB NOW !!!! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Captain Plumbo
Caldari NorCorp Enterprise
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:14:00 -
[763]
Welcome to Nerf Online™
Guess who's going to be most wanted at the fanfest
Seriously, the devs need to read this blog on mmorpg nerfs.
|
FLAME 61
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:14:00 -
[764]
Jamm fighters? how about ECM ships for this?
|
Gyle
Caldari Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:15:00 -
[765]
Originally by: XoPhyte Edited by: XoPhyte on 21/10/2007 21:03:00
Originally by: Strategos Edited by: Strategos on 21/10/2007 20:47:29
Originally by: Gyle your wrong. carriers and motherships were meant to be the way they are otherwise quiet simply they wouldn be like that.
Yah, I'm wrong because you don't like the changes. I also like your approach to balance.
"Ah look ma! I can kill anything with one click of the mouse on my new EW frig! I guess if it was never ment to be like this CCP wouldn't have made it this way! I will cry if they nerf it!"
QQ more, the tears taste sweet.
Where are those guys in Evol who tell everyone to Adapt or STFU? You know, the corp in charge of BoB, the one Molle is in? MC have used that line a couple times as well. I guess only when something changes that is good for them and others are whining about it do they get the notion to say it.
You seem to have our philosophy in Bob incorrect. We adapt to current game mechanics and there are plenty of ways to kill carriers (take a look at our killboards sometime, we have killed plenty of yours). However game mechanics don't need to be changed as a broad stroke when it doesnt address any of the root causes of problems in eve (IE, motherships terrorizing low sec, which one WAS killed in low sec recently).
So don't feed me the "adapt" line. A lot of players in Eve did adapt by training and taking a lot of time to earn the isk for a carrier. Rather then you adapting to the game and having to invest the same type of effort, time and isk to be able to do the same, you would prefer that the game be adapted to you.
Spot on. a well formed 30 man BS gang with smartbobms and remote reps can easiyly hold 2 mother ships at bay. KIA have proved it. So just becuase other gangs cant be bothered to setup properly for a fight all the mom and carrier pilots in eve have to suffer. Thats dum.
Titans are alardy nurfed to hell. nurf moms and oh look super caps that arent super thats cool. that doesnt seem like somthing massive got skewed in the balancing somwhere.
|
Ethaet
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:16:00 -
[766]
This idea fails.
Seriously, perhaps CCP should concentrate on fixing problems like desync, lag or Jita rather than introducing new ones - TQ has encountered a database issue, we are sitting around wondering why it has crashed this time, waiting for 500,000 petitions and watching the forums fill up.
Post with your alt! |
Head ButtonPusher
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:16:00 -
[767]
Either CCP are mean bastards for sending the new guy out to deliver really stupid news that is going to be flamed to death, OR Zulupark needs to get transfered back to Quality Assurance.
Either way, this is piles and piles of fail. |
LordVodka
Earned In Blood Black Sun Cartel
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:17:00 -
[768]
Originally by: Kagura Nikon
Originally by: LordVodka No offense but this is one of the dumbest idea's around, look at nidhoggur archon and chimera, if we use a standard 10 drones, with my skills i get only 900 dps, with max skills i can get 1000 dps. O wait theres more! My fighters go down in about 1 second to concentrated volleys, so i can lose 100% of my dps in under a minute in a fight. Now lets switch over to a megathron, wait this ship cost 90 million isk, 30 mil to fit and can do 1100+ dps with ions, and over 1200+ with neutrons. Not only does this ship start with a much higher dps it can never lose all of it's dps unless it is killed.
So why nerf a 800-1 bil isk ship, that takes a billion isk in skills, and 500 million isk to fit, that still does worse dps then a bs can. Sure a mothership can killl a bs in a couple seconds, but to be fair the ship costs 30 bil, and as x13 proved to us they go down in 2 minutes themselves, not exactly as long as you'd think a 30 bil ship would last in a fight, specailly since they are another 20 bil to faction fit.
I beg you to be reasonable here, carriers drones are to weak to be considered as permant dps they die far to quickly and I believe this nerf is vastly unjustified.
If the nerf does go through in hte end despite my crys for ccp to see reason, then at least boost fighters to a affordable build cost cause they die way to easy, and consider tossing in a t2 fighter that would cost the current fighter price...
You really need someoen to explain? Ok lets go.
- MEgathron can do this dps at 5 km. What range can you do it with your drones? ahhh i tough so. - In the time it takes for you to loose 1 fighters against 1 Battheship the battleship isa lready dead. Fighters are only treatened if you are fighting with insuficient support (and that is what ccp want you to stop doing) - Increase the numbers to like 40 carriers then tell me what BSs can do against it? (on any believable numbers). EWven 100 BS woudl become smoke. -Aa your ship cost 1 Bil isk. My machariel also.... so by your logic I shoudl match a carrier.
On my opinion, the idea is great, jsut need to be adjusted. Mybe 5 is a too small number. And i think MS should be able to use more than carriers.
your an idiot basically, first off i can EASILY tank a carrier in my bs, 2nd off if i engage you with my carrier at 100km's try docking or jumping outa system genius not like i have a warpscram for 100km.
|
UPS Truck
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:17:00 -
[769]
Go through with this and you might as well make carriers a POS module.
|
Alski
Gallente Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:18:00 -
[770]
Well ****.
I can't really add anything that hasent allready been said, Worst... Idea... Everrrrrr.
While i'm fairley confident that on the basis of this thread alone CCP will get the right idea and NOT go ahead with this ****** plan, i can say with 100% completeley confidence that if this does ever make it to TQ, i'll be selling my carrier alt, I DID NOT spend over a year training for carriers to sit at a %&$*(*!"!!ing POS or to sit in suicide mode... sry "triage mode" trying to repair stuff that will die anyway, i trained it to FIGHT.
wts: uber carrier pilot char. wtb: new sig. -
(combat) Patch belonging to CCP hits your drones, wrecking their liberty and freedom. |
|
Lobster Man
Murder-Death-Kill
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:18:00 -
[771]
I think limiting a carrier's number of drones it can directly control to just 5 seems like a bit overkill with the nerf bat. I like the idea with the fighter drones, but I think a carrier pilot should still be able to launch more than 5 regular drones. A carrier is a damn powerful ship, and it shuould be reflected in the amount of regular drones they can control.
Like I said, I like the idea with fighters, but if a carrier can only launch 5 heavies or 5 armor maintenance bots...well hell we should all just fly remote rep domis instead of anything else.....
|
Larsonist
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:18:00 -
[772]
Edited by: Larsonist on 21/10/2007 21:25:45 fixed original
|
Rawthorm
Gallente The Establishment Establishment
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:19:00 -
[773]
Right so you want to remove a carrier or MS's ability to defend itself once all its gang is dead?
Tell me, you gonna limit dreads to firing one gun at a time when not in gang or battleships for that matter? **shakes head**
|
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar MASS HOMICIDE Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:20:00 -
[774]
Originally by: LordVodka
Originally by: Kagura Nikon
Originally by: LordVodka No offense but this is one of the dumbest idea's around, look at nidhoggur archon and chimera, if we use a standard 10 drones, with my skills i get only 900 dps, with max skills i can get 1000 dps. O wait theres more! My fighters go down in about 1 second to concentrated volleys, so i can lose 100% of my dps in under a minute in a fight. Now lets switch over to a megathron, wait this ship cost 90 million isk, 30 mil to fit and can do 1100+ dps with ions, and over 1200+ with neutrons. Not only does this ship start with a much higher dps it can never lose all of it's dps unless it is killed.
So why nerf a 800-1 bil isk ship, that takes a billion isk in skills, and 500 million isk to fit, that still does worse dps then a bs can. Sure a mothership can killl a bs in a couple seconds, but to be fair the ship costs 30 bil, and as x13 proved to us they go down in 2 minutes themselves, not exactly as long as you'd think a 30 bil ship would last in a fight, specailly since they are another 20 bil to faction fit.
I beg you to be reasonable here, carriers drones are to weak to be considered as permant dps they die far to quickly and I believe this nerf is vastly unjustified.
If the nerf does go through in hte end despite my crys for ccp to see reason, then at least boost fighters to a affordable build cost cause they die way to easy, and consider tossing in a t2 fighter that would cost the current fighter price...
You really need someoen to explain? Ok lets go.
- MEgathron can do this dps at 5 km. What range can you do it with your drones? ahhh i tough so. - In the time it takes for you to loose 1 fighters against 1 Battheship the battleship isa lready dead. Fighters are only treatened if you are fighting with insuficient support (and that is what ccp want you to stop doing) - Increase the numbers to like 40 carriers then tell me what BSs can do against it? (on any believable numbers). EWven 100 BS woudl become smoke. -Aa your ship cost 1 Bil isk. My machariel also.... so by your logic I shoudl match a carrier.
On my opinion, the idea is great, jsut need to be adjusted. Mybe 5 is a too small number. And i think MS should be able to use more than carriers.
your an idiot basically, first off i can EASILY tank a carrier in my bs, 2nd off if i engage you with my carrier at 100km's try docking or jumping outa system genius not like i have a warpscram for 100km.
calling someone an idiot will hardly make your point more true, and only helps to make you look like a fool.
And again you are givign a counter exampel thaqt only matters if you are solo. CArriers are not supposed to be solo, you shoudl ahve someoen there to tackle for ya. So you made yourself look like an idiot.
Nerfing capitals is a great pass on correct direction to make game more FUN for MORE people.
If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough |
XiticiX
Gallente Kudzu Collective Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:20:00 -
[775]
Originally by: CCP Abathur Ladies and Gentlemen, please rest assured that the Dev team is paying attention to this thread. Don't take it all out on Zulu; he was just the messenger. As was stated in the original blog this is an idea and we thank you all for your constructive input. Please feel free to continue voicing what your concerns are and we will do our best to address them.
I just wanted to thank CCP for bringing the idea to the public forum FIRST before putting time into changes without the player's input. I realize this is a lot to read, but the fact that you ARE reading says a lot. That said, this change shouldn't be implemented as it is. Others have come up with more viable solutions, but tbh I don't see a problem with carriers in the first place. If the problem is too much fighter blobbing, find another method, as the one proposed drastically reduces the playability of the ship. ~~~ This is my sig. Do you like it? ~~~ |
omega21
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:20:00 -
[776]
i tihnk this is a vary bad idea nerfing the carriers the fighters are the carriers only defence/offence meaning if they do this carriers will have to be in a gang at pretty much all times i hope they dont do this
|
Ztrain
Evolution Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:21:00 -
[777]
Originally by: Silvion This idea of transforming Carriers into capital logistics ships with limited firepower is a direct contradiction to what has been taught in every naval school for the last century. In the real world, capital ships (i.e. the Iowa Class Battleship and Nimitz Class Carrier for the U.S. Navy, the Queen Elizabeth Class of the U.K. and the Bismark Class of Germany in WWII) act as the centerpiece of naval fleets. The reason for this is simple to the extreme:
THE CAPITAL SHIP IS THE ONE BEST SUITED TO THE PROJECTION OF COMBAT POWER! NOT SUPPORTING OTHER SHIPS!
That could also be part of the problem. The game is developed in Iceland. Using references to countries that have active military may be a completely foreign a concept as having a development outline.
Z CCP (Producers of Slide Show Online) takin the fun out of EVE, one patch at a time. |
Blood Ghost
Occam's Razor Combine
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:22:00 -
[778]
Originally by: UPS Truck Go through with this and you might as well make carriers a POS module.
QFT: My corp mate said the same thing
|
Sooshie
Exanimo Inc Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:23:00 -
[779]
Edited by: Sooshie on 21/10/2007 21:25:12 This dev is ****ing stupid. Carriers do about the damage of a well fitted blasterthon and cost so much more and they want to nerf that? If anything they need to be rebalanced to give fighters more damage capability. About the only thing I can possibly think of is different classes of fighters for different damage outputs like the damage of blasterthons and maybe reduce the amount deployed but drastically upscaled the DPS.. But the dev here seems to have nothing of that in mind and is otherwise a bloody idiot. I'd just cancle my carrier alt account if they did this so there's one customer committment to do such publicly.
|
Iluthien
Caldari Valiant Logistics Inc. EternalRising
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:24:00 -
[780]
If you're going to take away carriers ability to do direct DPS, increase their efficiency with logistics/gang links/gang mods/whatever to the point where it is completely noticeable to have a well skilled carrier in the gang, and make sure they can still defend themselves against enemy support to an EXTENT, be less prone to lone EWar (oh hay damp nerf), and increase the dreadnought's ability to do anti-fleet combat. Also lower the cost of fighters and make them smaller.
Also, for those whining about the logsitics ships, the difference between a carrier (when used as a logistics capital) and a logistics cruiser is survivability (assuming fleet/gang). "Primary that 40k effective with no tank HP cruiser! 10 seconds later *pop*" versus "Primary that 200k+ effective HP with tank carrier! 10 minutes and lots of losses to carrier support later *pop/retreat*". At least that's what the idea is supposed to be.
Let me ask you all, why did you train for a carrier/mom in the first place? So you could fly something with more DPS and tank than a battleship?
Originally by: Snaut IMHO most people wanted a carrier because of its solo combat and tanking abilities.
They aren't supposed to be solopwnmobiles. Or something that cost less/more effective than a dread? Maybe dreads are too expensive/ineffective for fleets? So you could smartbomb pods on gates with impunity? Because you were tired of losing ISK everytime you lost a BS? Because training for a capital is a natural progression in skill training? Because you ran out of things to train?
The idea, I believe, is to change from carriers direct DPS to carriers indirect DPS through the use of having an advantage through skills/logistics. At the moment, there is no reason for a carrier to provide indirect support.
Suggestion: Increase carriers logistics abilities (give scan res bonus for triage, remote rep amount/range/cap use buff, gang link fire control for extra damage/tracking/range, whatever), give them moderate defense against tacklers/support whether it be drones or hardpoints, give dreads a reason to be fielded in fleets other than looking pretty, buff fighters, and nerf Velators all while keeping blob size down.
Or don't change anything, except nerfing the Velator.
On a different note, players still do need a unique way to solo PvP that is available to each race. Just not using capital ships.
Finally, if you don't like it, sell/reprocess your carrier, buy/build the dread/skills, or adapt. It is CCP's game, you pay them to play. If they want to change, they can, and WILL change it. -----
I'm in your space podding your mans! |
|
FLAME 61
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:24:00 -
[781]
Edited by: FLAME 61 on 21/10/2007 21:24:48 damn...Scorpion have to many medium slot for jammers...nerf it!!! Domi have to large drone bay...nerf it!!! maybe remove all classes of ships from gamebesides frigates?
|
Zurtur
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:25:00 -
[782]
Originally by: Blood Ghost
Originally by: UPS Truck Go through with this and you might as well make carriers a POS module.
QFT: My corp mate said the same thing
So true...
Z -
Back in sig designs! |
Arshes Nei
Omega Fleet Enterprises Executive Outcomes
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:25:00 -
[783]
There are 2 reasons carriers/moms are at the frontlines.
1. To use their fighters/drones. 2. To repair other capitals.
If carriers have to delegate fighters anyway, there is no reason to not just delegate ALL of your fighters. If you delegate all of your fighters anyway, point 1. goes away, it will now be done by the people you delegated fighters too. So the only reason left to be at the frontlines is 2., repairing capitals, usually carriers or moms.
Is it just me who thinks that bringing ships to the frontlines which sole purpose it is to rep each other would be a bit silly? So my guess is people wont be silly and dont do that, they will do the assigning from elsewhere, i.e. right outside the shields of a deathstar pos.
New carrier fit: 5xDrone control units as many capmods as possible
This looks exciting. Way to bring some spice to capital fights, i envision carriers loaded with cheap t1 ships, pilots getting podded arriving right at the moms at the deathstar, and titans jumpbridging whole freighters with more ammo(fighters ofc) and cheap t1 ships in. It would be like counterstrike in space, i like it.
|
LordVodka
Earned In Blood Black Sun Cartel
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:26:00 -
[784]
Originally by: Kagura Nikon
Originally by: LordVodka
Originally by: Kagura Nikon
Originally by: LordVodka No offense but this is one of the dumbest idea's around, look at nidhoggur archon and chimera, if we use a standard 10 drones, with my skills i get only 900 dps, with max skills i can get 1000 dps. O wait theres more! My fighters go down in about 1 second to concentrated volleys, so i can lose 100% of my dps in under a minute in a fight. Now lets switch over to a megathron, wait this ship cost 90 million isk, 30 mil to fit and can do 1100+ dps with ions, and over 1200+ with neutrons. Not only does this ship start with a much higher dps it can never lose all of it's dps unless it is killed.
So why nerf a 800-1 bil isk ship, that takes a billion isk in skills, and 500 million isk to fit, that still does worse dps then a bs can. Sure a mothership can killl a bs in a couple seconds, but to be fair the ship costs 30 bil, and as x13 proved to us they go down in 2 minutes themselves, not exactly as long as you'd think a 30 bil ship would last in a fight, specailly since they are another 20 bil to faction fit.
I beg you to be reasonable here, carriers drones are to weak to be considered as permant dps they die far to quickly and I believe this nerf is vastly unjustified.
If the nerf does go through in hte end despite my crys for ccp to see reason, then at least boost fighters to a affordable build cost cause they die way to easy, and consider tossing in a t2 fighter that would cost the current fighter price...
You really need someoen to explain? Ok lets go.
- MEgathron can do this dps at 5 km. What range can you do it with your drones? ahhh i tough so. - In the time it takes for you to loose 1 fighters against 1 Battheship the battleship isa lready dead. Fighters are only treatened if you are fighting with insuficient support (and that is what ccp want you to stop doing) - Increase the numbers to like 40 carriers then tell me what BSs can do against it? (on any believable numbers). EWven 100 BS woudl become smoke. -Aa your ship cost 1 Bil isk. My machariel also.... so by your logic I shoudl match a carrier.
On my opinion, the idea is great, jsut need to be adjusted. Mybe 5 is a too small number. And i think MS should be able to use more than carriers.
your an idiot basically, first off i can EASILY tank a carrier in my bs, 2nd off if i engage you with my carrier at 100km's try docking or jumping outa system genius not like i have a warpscram for 100km.
calling someone an idiot will hardly make your point more true, and only helps to make you look like a fool.
And again you are givign a counter exampel thaqt only matters if you are solo. CArriers are not supposed to be solo, you shoudl ahve someoen there to tackle for ya. So you made yourself look like an idiot.
Nerfing capitals is a great pass on correct direction to make game more FUN for MORE people.
he did mention 1 megathron, i was merely countering that point, either way heard of things called bombs and smartbombs? it's no where near as hard as you think to whipe out entire swarms of fighters.
and as han stated earlier you arguements are baseless 40 mega's beat 40 brutoix's obviously 40 carriers should beat 40 mega's.
|
Amaron Ghant
Caldari Ascent of Ages Dark Matter Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:26:00 -
[785]
Originally by: XiticiX
Originally by: CCP Abathur Ladies and Gentlemen, please rest assured that the Dev team is paying attention to this thread. Don't take it all out on Zulu; he was just the messenger. As was stated in the original blog this is an idea and we thank you all for your constructive input. Please feel free to continue voicing what your concerns are and we will do our best to address them.
I just wanted to thank CCP for bringing the idea to the public forum FIRST before putting time into changes without the player's input. I realize this is a lot to read, but the fact that you ARE reading says a lot.
I REALLY wish I shared your optimism, I really do. |
ZedLey
Amarr D00M.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:27:00 -
[786]
No ! Let me put it simple, nerf the carriers in this way, i quit eve. I dont spend 6 months of training to stare at a pos shield. |
Gyle
Caldari Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:27:00 -
[787]
Originally by: Sooshie This dev is ****ing stupid. Carriers do about the damage of a well fitted blasterthon and cost so much more and they want to nerf that? If anything they need to be rebalanced to give fighters more damage capability.
Signed.
increase fighter dmg by 20% increase fighter tracking by 50% Reduce the tanking ability against fighters from the whining BS noobs who complain becuase they havent been playing long enough to own something they know nothing about by 70%
|
Analius Shitson
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:28:00 -
[788]
What a stupid idea, my char is about 7 to 8 months old and i only fly BS and BC, but this sounds like a REALLY bad idea. In not an expert, but i would never get carrier if this change would be made. I dont only sound stupid, but also boring, difficult and why bother kind of thing.
I suggest you do not make these changes, sounds like a very bad step.
I would love to know who makes this bad decissions, this game should be fun, not....
|
Larsonist
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:29:00 -
[789]
Quote: Signed.
increase fighter dmg by 20% increase fighter tracking by 50% Reduce the tanking ability against fighters from the whining BS noobs who complain becuase they havent been playing long enough to own something they know nothing about by 70%
/signed
|
James Draekn
The Holy Hand Grenades of Antioch Dogs of War.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:30:00 -
[790]
Just finished reading this DEV blog and thought, what a awesome way to boost the large Alliances and Corporations in this game. This will change smaller gang warfare into blob fests by increasing the size requirements of all gangs with carrier support. The way it stands now a small corp/alliance with a decent size carrier fleet can hold space and defend it against a much large foe. This will change that idea to a requirement of having super-sized gangs (blob warfare) to take or hold any given part of space just to support and use carriers. This in turn will generate massive lag for any combat that involves carriers. Not to mention it will force smaller corps/allaince out of areas since they will not be able to bring the members nessasary to support/properly use carriers. This change will devastate the smaller alliances and corps in this game. Next the triage mode.....
Triage mode: This module has a great idea behind it but it lacks a bit of foresight into how combat in eve is played.
1. Cap usage is doubled due to the halved cycle time on remote reppers, but their is no cap decrease on the remote reppers.
2. When in Triage you can't be remote repped, understandable when you factor the other bonuses, but see point one as to why your tank is now screwed when supporting others. Why bother supporting others.
3. Mobility, speed is life, at least for smaller ships. But if you are suck at gate XZY and the fight moved to gate ABC you aren't much good to your gang when the enemy changes the field on you and you can't follow due to triage mode. Your opponents in this game will quickly switch the field to kill the remote repping advantage. I completely agree that jump drives should be offline, but warp drive needs to be online.
4. Your 1 Billion isk ship lost all ability to provide your gang with some extra punch. Allow the carrier to launch its fighters/drones when in Triage. But require them to be assigned to another player to engage the enemy.
5. Range. enough said. If it is on Grid (250km), you should be able to rep it.
The worst part of this idea is the realization that CCP is trying to force players to create massize blobs just to use carriers. Lag is bad enough in this game, but this would make combat lag even worse
|
|
itsan egro
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:30:00 -
[791]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark Thanks for your input guys, there's some interesting points here. We are of course taking all your comments seriously into consideration and will reflect upon it over the next days. We will keep you up to date of our findings, now go enjoy your Sunday night slaughter.
This sounds like a major blow off. I didn't do a year plus of skill training so I could fly a ship with 5 drones. I did all that training because the day I found eve-online and went through the ships section before ever playing the game I saw carriers and liked the idea of controlling a large number of fighters. If this change goes through, what I enjoy about the game will be ruined, what I spent a year+ working towards will be ruined, and I will cancel all my accounts. But just like the compression nerf, it sounds like you are ready to go through with another major, game change regardless of how your customers recieve it. You should ask Sony how that has worked for them.
|
Pallidum Treponema
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:31:00 -
[792]
Originally by: Clavius XIV
Because it makes bringing something that just does "front-line direct fire support" (ie Battleships) pointless?
Simple answer: No.
A carrier does not have the means to deal "instant damage" over 100-200km range. In fact, a carrier does not have a direct fire ability at all, with the exception of smartbombs and sentry drones, both of which have limited uses.
A battleship fleet is able to warp in at 150km, turn around and deal direct fire to an enemy fleet while remaining at a relatively safe distance. A carrier does not. Trying to send fighters over the distance of 150km is not a viable option, as the fighters would get picked off before they arrived, OR the enemy would simply warp away.
Should the carriers go in at close range, they're far more vulnerable if things should go pearshaped. They also don't have the speed and agility to chase down a battleship fleet that MWD away, then warp up to a sniping position to take out fighters.
-- MC's Swedish squidshark
|
Strategos
Genco Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:32:00 -
[793]
Originally by: Kagura Nikon calling someone an idiot will hardly make your point more true, and only helps to make you look like a fool.
And again you are givign a counter exampel thaqt only matters if you are solo. CArriers are not supposed to be solo, you shoudl ahve someoen there to tackle for ya. So you made yourself look like an idiot.
Nerfing capitals is a great pass on correct direction to make game more FUN for MORE people.
Can't argue with these idiots, Kagura. They all want their carriers to solo pwn and believe they should be able to just cause they spent a billion isk and took time to train it. And you're right, by their logic your Nano Mach should be able to solo a carrier or even a dread.
I believe this change would be good. That's not saying carriers shouldn't get a supportive role buff, it's saying the change to dones/fighters would be good. I believe triage could use some love to make it more convenient to use to support a fleet during a fight. ---Sig--- Sig removed, not appropriate for the forum. Please contact [email protected] for more info (including a copy of your picture!) -Pirlouit
|
Synapse Archae
Amarr Solarflare Heavy Industries Pure.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:32:00 -
[794]
Carriers are already sitting ducks without support, and everyone who does much PVP knows it.
Furthermore as people have poited out, this negates any reason at all to get a mothership. - - - Originally by: CCP Garthagk While these forums may not give you everything that you want, they will usually let you post.
|
Brigitte
S.A.S Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:33:00 -
[795]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark Thanks for your input guys, there's some interesting points here. We are of course taking all your comments seriously into consideration and will reflect upon it over the next days. We will keep you up to date of our findings, now go enjoy your Sunday night slaughter.
cough until we nerf it then it will be called "enjoy ur sunday night delegateing in a pos"
|
XiticiX
Gallente Kudzu Collective Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:35:00 -
[796]
Originally by: Amaron Ghant
Originally by: XiticiX
Originally by: CCP Abathur Ladies and Gentlemen, please rest assured that the Dev team is paying attention to this thread. Don't take it all out on Zulu; he was just the messenger. As was stated in the original blog this is an idea and we thank you all for your constructive input. Please feel free to continue voicing what your concerns are and we will do our best to address them.
I just wanted to thank CCP for bringing the idea to the public forum FIRST before putting time into changes without the player's input. I realize this is a lot to read, but the fact that you ARE reading says a lot.
I REALLY wish I shared your optimism, I really do.
Optimism? No.. Just observing the fact that they could have implemented this change on Sisi, thereby putting a lot of time and work into it FIRST without querying their user-base first. Thus, they would be more reluctant to change anything at all. The fact they came to the forums FIRST so we can hash out what they're doing wrong says that they are listening to us. Otherwise, they wouldn't have made a devblog about it at all. No, no optimism. I'm sure a change is coming. But I can gaurantee it won't be how it is outlined in the devblog after 30+ pages of comments. ~~~ This is my sig. Do you like it? ~~~ |
Kaktusz
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:35:00 -
[797]
Originally by: ZedLey No ! Let me put it simple, nerf the carriers in this way, i quit eve. I dont spend 6 months of training to stare at a pos shield.
Signed!
CCP dont waste our time. Live carriers as it is now.
|
Malleus Raven
Black Lotus Foundation Alpha Tauri
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:35:00 -
[798]
Edited by: Malleus Raven on 21/10/2007 21:36:09 hey, just thought i point out again... if you go through with this perposal you will be spitting in the face of small corporations/alliances trying to make a name for themselves, carriers are the work horse of many corporations in low-sec close 0.0. doing this does not nearly effect the larger corporations/alliances as much as a 10-40 man corp/alliance. mainly because now that supports in demand again they will blob the system with more ships to control all of those fighters because fighters in themselves are so awesome. 5 fighters for a carrier trying to defend itself will not work and as they are capitals they will be the last to be shot (usually). how are they supposed to use their fighters if they cant delegate them to other people. please reconsider your proposal and leave them as they are. many people think they are NOT broken and don't need to be changed.
edited for spelling
|
Icome4u
Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:36:00 -
[799]
Edited by: Icome4u on 21/10/2007 21:36:21 Badddd idea.
This sig demonstrate the problem is not drones or fighters but the amount of people show up to blobs and fleets. |
DeadDuck
Amarr Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:36:00 -
[800]
My only concern is the lag the actual Carrier/Mom system causes...
I dont mind if CCP increases fighter damage for a big percentage and in return reduces the amount of drones carriers they can carry and deploy at a time...
I just dont want to see the clouds of drones that more and more populate fleet fights.
I think this solution would be good, to keep all the ones that trained for carriers/moms happy and on the same time everybody happy with the lag reduction that this solution would bring.
|
|
Icome4u
Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:37:00 -
[801]
Edited by: Icome4u on 21/10/2007 21:38:59 Edited by: Icome4u on 21/10/2007 21:37:58
Originally by: DeadDuck My only concern is the lag the actual Carrier/Mom system causes...
I dont mind if CCP increases fighter damage for a big percentage and in return reduces the amount of drones carriers they can carry and deploy at a time...
I just dont want to see the clouds of drones that more and more populate fleet fights.
I think this solution would be good, to keep all the ones that trained for carriers/moms happy and on the same time everybody happy with the lag reduction that this solution would bring.
Heh not our fault... Why take our fighters away? Take t1/t2 Frigates and t1/t2 cruisers (and maybe t1/t2 BC) ability to use drones away... stupid? yes! Just like this idea from CCP!
Edit: At WORST, give fighters control by carriers a big bonus to drone dps and hp.
This sig demonstrate the problem is not drones or fighters but the amount of people show up to blobs and fleets. |
Inturist
Nuclear Reactor Inc INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:38:00 -
[802]
Originally by: Strategos
Originally by: Kagura Nikon calling someone an idiot will hardly make your point more true, and only helps to make you look like a fool.
And again you are givign a counter exampel thaqt only matters if you are solo. CArriers are not supposed to be solo, you shoudl ahve someoen there to tackle for ya. So you made yourself look like an idiot.
Nerfing capitals is a great pass on correct direction to make game more FUN for MORE people.
Can't argue with these idiots, Kagura. They all want their carriers to solo pwn and believe they should be able to just cause they spent a billion isk and took time to train it. And you're right, by their logic your Nano Mach should be able to solo a carrier or even a dread.
I believe this change would be good. That's not saying carriers shouldn't get a supportive role buff, it's saying the change to dones/fighters would be good. I believe triage could use some love to make it more convenient to use to support a fleet during a fight.
I saw on the market for sale brains , go there , buy some , use it . Well , but might not help u , well , at least u can try
Carrier r not SOLOPWN Mobiles . If it's solo pwn mobile , how it when simple frigate with damneners, damped u ? U can't do a **** , well , strange , Carrier is solo pwn mobile ?eh ? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Docteur Jal
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:39:00 -
[803]
Edited by: Docteur Jal on 21/10/2007 21:39:54
Originally by: Strategos
Originally by: Kagura Nikon calling someone an idiot will hardly make your point more true, and only helps to make you look like a fool.
And again you are givign a counter exampel thaqt only matters if you are solo. CArriers are not supposed to be solo, you shoudl ahve someoen there to tackle for ya. So you made yourself look like an idiot.
Nerfing capitals is a great pass on correct direction to make game more FUN for MORE people.
Can't argue with these idiots, Kagura. They all want their carriers to solo pwn and believe they should be able to just cause they spent a billion isk and took time to train it. And you're right, by their logic your Nano Mach should be able to solo a carrier or even a dread.
I believe this change would be good. That's not saying carriers shouldn't get a supportive role buff, it's saying the change to dones/fighters would be good. I believe triage could use some love to make it more convenient to use to support a fleet during a fight.
At least if you were bringin valid points i would hear your opinions but the few posts you made before that one did not obviously. unless you have been ganked one day by a pirate MS?
in all case i do not see why training of vets should be nerfed to fit to a new style play for 3-6 months old players.
|
Mrrzah
Amarr Ordo Drakonis
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:39:00 -
[804]
Lol at this massive whine thread.
While this certainly wasn't a very good idea, I'm glad to see that CCP is looking at ways to discourage the overuse of carriers.
|
javer
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:40:00 -
[805]
this change is imo a result of to much intoxication and not enough analysis of the problems at hand
step 1 ban super capitals from committing offensive actions against ships in low sec, disable there smartbombs+targeting ability thus they can still have fighters out and defend if attacked to limited ability
step 2 introduce new fighters that have various classes anti frig, bs etc so the ms/carriers will choose if they need raw dps but at expense of reduced to hit chance on small targets or if they want a lighter drone that can do more allround but will sacrigfice the 5sec and kill against bigger ships
step 3 allow skills to influence fighters, introduce ships bonuses that would allow reducing drone amounts while keeping the dps the same(take this as part of drone overhaul) -------------------------------------------- Never argue with an idiot, they will drag you down to their Level and beat you with experience. |
Graph ro
Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:40:00 -
[806]
This would make carriers and moms completely useless on the battlefield, as a battleship cannot be healed fast enough, especially against a well coordinated opponent. Healing a carrier that can field 5 drones direcly would make no sense so carriers/moms would just stay at a pos assigning fighters, increasing lag (all fighters need to be assigned before the battle starts), making the game alot more boring for capital pilots who will never be at the battle.
What is the reasoning behind this nerf, carriers cannot keep battleships alive in fleetbattles, even if their repair capability gets a boost. Lag will be worse. Motherships will be useless (obsolete), especially with the introduction of jump freighters, even their logistic role is surpassed.
The effects of this change would be : - carriers/moms used only at a pos with all fighters assigned - more titans will be produced as the resources to build moms would be diverted to titan production - later on dreads would be used on the battlefield instead, with anti-fleet fittings, but only very rich alliances would do this as it requires fielding dreads and again carriers (not moms) to support them - even more lag. This would go together with an extensive use of titans. Smaller/medium alliances would never be able to afford this, being penalized even more.
You should work on reducing lag instead of making it worse. That should be priority. Also don't start fixing stuff that isn't broken. Please work on changing pos warfare and discourage blobs, not encourage even more blobbing.
|
R1pp3r
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:40:00 -
[807]
Some of you don't recognize that carriers are fast replacing bs on the battle field. It is extremely frustrating in small group warfare to have a bunch of carriers and a mothership or 2 dropped on you as soon as your group agresses. Someone in this thread has already mentioned it but I like the idea of fighters having a hard time tracking battleships. This would still allow for the tactical repair advantage realizing that carriers would still need a significant boost to their capacitor.
The most significant issue here is you(CCP) continue to develop EVE as if there is no lag. Aren't we well beyond that delusion? Short of sharding there's probably not much left you can do. Please don't tell me about how the next patch or addition is going to fix lag. You've been spouting that nonsense ever since castor and it's gotten worse with each roll out. Recognize the true state of the game and develop on that premise.
|
Closer Still
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:40:00 -
[808]
Edited by: Closer Still on 21/10/2007 21:40:58 the big problem is that, unlike half the ships in eve, nobody (ok, not many people) really wants carriers nerfed.
it seems (in my opinion) that people realize the skills, money, and risk that comes with flying a carrier as a 'solopwn mobile'.
what is this meant to 'balance'? making carriers do less damage will make any carriers on my side of an engagement hit for less and do the same for my enemy.
people have taken out carriers with just a handful of battleships. its not like they are (anywhere near) immortal, so i seems to me that ccp is trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist.
|
Pallidum Treponema
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:40:00 -
[809]
Originally by: Kagura Nikon
You really need someoen to explain? Ok lets go.
- Increase the numbers to like 40 carriers then tell me what BSs can do against it? (on any believable numbers). EWven 100 BS woudl become smoke.
100 BS are able to snipe a carrier to death before its mates could lock it for remote reps. Also, at sniping distances, fighters are useless as they would be killed off well before they would arrive to do damage.
Give me 100 battleships, a couple of covops and a few dictors against any carrier-only fleet, and I promise you I'd come out victorious. If not by completely killing my enemy, definitely by the amount of ISK destroyed before my fleet was killed. -- MC's Swedish squidshark
|
Icome4u
Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:40:00 -
[810]
Edited by: Icome4u on 21/10/2007 21:43:21 People who say carriers/ms are solowtfpwnmachines are noobs and idiots. It's far from that, just because your friend that has been playing 2 month longer than you said that, it doesn't make it true.
Edit: Carriers and Motherships are great for ONE reason. They give the ability to someone who spent a lot of time training and a lot of isk the ability to show force. Hey it's a capital ship after all. And tbh the show of force isn't that great...
This sig demonstrate the problem is not drones or fighters but the amount of people show up to blobs and fleets. |
|
Reticenti
The Antilles Legion Quantum Star Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:41:00 -
[811]
Edited by: Reticenti on 21/10/2007 21:41:56 I've been wanting to train for a carrier, now, I'm not so sure. I don't want to have a carrier that cost ~3b to fit/train, and $180 USD of training time just to have it nerfed by the time I get the carrier. I will find another game to go to if this goes through.
Hmmm, WoW seems like it has at least some sensible devs....
|
Barbens
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:42:00 -
[812]
Completly Stupid...Defeats the purpose of this class of ship. Just remove them from game and save us all the headache. Of coarse, give me my 2bil back for my thanny and fittings first.
BaRbEnS
|
Alski
Gallente Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:42:00 -
[813]
Originally by: James Draekn
Triage mode: This module has a great idea behind it but it lacks a bit of foresight into how combat in eve is played.
1. Cap usage is doubled due to the halved cycle time on remote reppers, but their is no cap decrease on the remote reppers.
2. When in Triage you can't be remote repped, understandable when you factor the other bonuses, but see point one as to why your tank is now screwed when supporting others. Why bother supporting others.
3. Mobility, speed is life, at least for smaller ships. But if you are suck at gate XZY and the fight moved to gate ABC you aren't much good to your gang when the enemy changes the field on you and you can't follow due to triage mode. Your opponents in this game will quickly switch the field to kill the remote repping advantage. I completely agree that jump drives should be offline, but warp drive needs to be online.
4. Your 1 Billion isk ship lost all ability to provide your gang with some extra punch. Allow the carrier to launch its fighters/drones when in Triage. But require them to be assigned to another player to engage the enemy.
5. Range. enough said. If it is on Grid (250km), you should be able to rep it.
The worst part of this idea is the realization that CCP is trying to force players to create massize blobs just to use carriers. Lag is bad enough in this game, but this would make combat lag even worse
/signed.
This would actuley get me useing triage mode, as it stands now triage is just a liability. -
(combat) Patch belonging to CCP hits your drones, wrecking their liberty and freedom. |
Das Lol
Gallente Internet Space Fighters
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:43:00 -
[814]
Originally by: R1pp3r Someone in this thread has already mentioned it but I like the idea of fighters having a hard time tracking battleships. This would still allow for the tactical repair advantage...
You forgot the part where nobody smart uses carriers for that.
|
Sonos SAGD
Black Eclipse Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:45:00 -
[815]
I dont think that CCP realizes that a lot of people are getting older and carriers are the best step for people to take.
Dreads are only useful for pos pew pew while cariers cand be used for reping statoins, small gangs, and fleet
|
Strategos
Genco Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:45:00 -
[816]
Originally by: Inturist
Originally by: Strategos
Originally by: Kagura Nikon calling someone an idiot will hardly make your point more true, and only helps to make you look like a fool.
And again you are givign a counter exampel thaqt only matters if you are solo. CArriers are not supposed to be solo, you shoudl ahve someoen there to tackle for ya. So you made yourself look like an idiot.
Nerfing capitals is a great pass on correct direction to make game more FUN for MORE people.
Can't argue with these idiots, Kagura. They all want their carriers to solo pwn and believe they should be able to just cause they spent a billion isk and took time to train it. And you're right, by their logic your Nano Mach should be able to solo a carrier or even a dread.
I believe this change would be good. That's not saying carriers shouldn't get a supportive role buff, it's saying the change to dones/fighters would be good. I believe triage could use some love to make it more convenient to use to support a fleet during a fight.
I saw on the market for sale brains , go there , buy some , use it . Well , but might not help u , well , at least u can try
Carrier r not SOLOPWN Mobiles . If it's solo pwn mobile , how it when simple frigate with damneners, damped u ? U can't do a **** , well , strange , Carrier is solo pwn mobile ?eh ?
Where was the carriers support? Oh that's right, you had none, because you think carriers should be able to kill anything solo. Maybe if you had activated triage you'd have known you are now immune to EW and those simple frigates would have been dead, or you know, you could of had the support that is supposed to be with you do it, but alas, you don't think carriers should need support and it should be able to pwn solo.
---Sig--- Sig removed, not appropriate for the forum. Please contact [email protected] for more info (including a copy of your picture!) -Pirlouit
|
Han Horensii
Res Publica R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:52:00 -
[817]
soon 1000 replies in a few hours, kind of a hot thread i read it all and seriously the % of pro vs con is like 5 vs 95% (1 per page, and not even)
wait tomorrow and you will have 5000 replies here :)
|
Strategos
Genco Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:53:00 -
[818]
Originally by: Icome4u
Originally by: Das Lol
Originally by: R1pp3r Someone in this thread has already mentioned it but I like the idea of fighters having a hard time tracking battleships. This would still allow for the tactical repair advantage...
You forgot the part where nobody smart uses carriers for that.
Considering any good pilot in a BS (if you suck at it don't freaking fly it) can tank fighters. Maybe not a MS full of fighters but hey... just GTFO. If you are tackled hey guess what! You deserve to die.
The carrier pilot is very unskilled SP wise if a battleship is tanking a full set of his fighters, but keep talking out of your ass, it doesn't make you look stupid at all. Only way a BS could tank a full set of carrier fighters is if the carrier only uses 1 damage type fighter and the BS it fully tanked vs that one type of damage. ---Sig--- Sig removed, not appropriate for the forum. Please contact [email protected] for more info (including a copy of your picture!) -Pirlouit
|
CopyCatz
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:53:00 -
[819]
Edited by: CopyCatz on 21/10/2007 21:54:39
Quote: and to be honest weære a little concerned with the direction itæs taking.
Could some dev elaborate on what you mean by that? The whole blog is about what you're going to do about it, but you don't explain what is wrong?
Quote: Well, we have an idea, and before you go ballistic remember that this is an idea and weære still working on it:
Do you envision an end point on the road you've taken now that will make the majority of veteran players less ballistic then?
Quote: But wait! Thereæs more! Not only do we want to limit the amount of fighters you can launch, but also the amount of drones!
You might want to take some PR training before thinking up sentences like that?
Quote: we feel that capital ships are being used way too much as better-than-battleships-at-killing-stuff ships
and battleships are better-than-cruisers-at-killing-stuff?
cruisers better-than-frigates-at-killing-stuff?
Quote: when we in fact think that they should be used more as the-ships-that-keep-other-ships-alive-and-provide-them-with-additional-firepower ships.
Umm I don't know if you ever read up on naval battles, but in the real world it's kinda the other way around?
Why not plainly admit that you feel there are too many capitals in the game, resulting in amounts of lag you can't fix? Just be honest about it and people will be happy to think about a solution constructively.
|
Sinder Ohm
Infinite Improbability Inc Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:53:00 -
[820]
Did Zulupark lose a drinking bet?? I mean seriously basically what you are proposing is a domi with lots of HP. and wtf is the use of asigning fighters when it takes ages to load grid cos of the lag.
Take a hint fix lag first then non cap ship pilots get a chance to warp out before they get bbqed by fighters + insane lag.
The big problems here are
1. MS pwning in low sec, they shouldnt be allowed to imo
2. Fighterswarms and lag = couldnt warp out in time where did my ship go
fix the problems and dont make new ones.
Originally by: Karanth Wimps play empire. Real men play in 0.0. Hardcore masochists live out in drone space.
|
|
TheSystem
Caldari The Blackstone Group Brutally Clever Empire
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:54:00 -
[821]
I would hope CCP is going to realize this is a poor implementation of change and maybe they will reconsider it due to all the replies of discontent.
Nerfs Suck.
/signed for lameness
|
Reticenti
The Antilles Legion Quantum Star Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:54:00 -
[822]
Edited by: Reticenti on 21/10/2007 21:54:21 It's already bad enough that a 15m fit eris can totally **** over a carrier/Mom, now you're going to make it so that a single Battleship and one eris can in effect, destroy a carrier?
when did 200m > 3b?
|
Kiell Amor
Per Ardua Ad Astra Inc
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:54:00 -
[823]
I think most of the salient points have already been raised, but just adding my name here to the masses who would sit their carriers at a POS instead of frontlining them if these changes were made...
|
Firane
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:56:00 -
[824]
Be gentle on him? lol. Good one Keiron.
Just one of the many things that proves CCP is blind to the real issue. You implement this change to do what exactly? Force the already massive 15 on 15 alliance wars in a single or spread across a few systems at a time to grow even bigger? Are you out of your ******* minds?
Obviously you want to see people who fly carriers jump into a support craft to reduce the number of ships overall. But any idiot who has played this game for the last year knows that these changes you try to make only make the blobbing issue worse. No one who trained a year+ for their carrier or mothership and then paid out the ass for it (average wallet: 400m, according to you guys, that means most people had to save for awhile to buy them... and thats just carriers...) is going to just say "okay, I'll get in a support ship! ^____^"
It will only serve to force people to recruit more support numbers to match the carrier and mothership pilots they have already, and recruit 10 more alliances to take out that ONE.
Pull your heads out of your collective netherregions. Stop ruining the ******* game you call your own.
Want to reduce lag? Make it EASIER to overthrow alliances, not harder. All Eve has become is a bunch of superbunkers that is so daunting a task to destroy people don't bother, or bring thousands of pilots.
This game just isn't as fun anymore.
-----
|
Fredric Lightmorr
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:57:00 -
[825]
Ahhhh no way
i just got my carrier yesterday, its not a cool idea
why would they do this, im quite sure some people would leave eve
|
Reticenti
The Antilles Legion Quantum Star Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:57:00 -
[826]
1000th post btw
|
Pallidum Treponema
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:58:00 -
[827]
Edited by: Pallidum Treponema on 21/10/2007 21:59:16
Originally by: R1pp3r Some of you don't recognize that carriers are fast replacing bs on the battle field. It is extremely frustrating in small group warfare to have a bunch of carriers and a mothership or 2 dropped on you as soon as your group agresses.
Now, THIS is a good point. I can definitely see how this can be an issue that needs to be adressed. In my opinion though, CCP is doing this completely in the wrong way.
The reason for why the "bunch of carriers and a mothership" is such a threat to the small or medium sized gangs isn't because of their firepower, but because of their ability to soak up the damage, making them invincible. Even if this change was performed, the "bunch of carriers and a mothership" would STILL be able to defeat the small gang at no risk to themselves, only slower.
However, if carriers instead lost or had reduced the ability to remote repair each others, the small gang would instead have a far better chance of killing off one or two of those carriers. This would also make large carrier groups riskier as their spidertank invulnerability would be largely negated, making it even more important to bring support ships to defend those carriers.
In fact, this logistics ability could instead be transfered to a dedicated logistics ship, perhaps even a capital logistics ship, with bonuses to capital reps allowing them to run three or four capital remote reps permanently.
Now, back to the small gang, wouldn't it be more fun if the small gang would be able to kill one of those carriers, rather than it still being near invulnerable but somewhat less of a damagedealer? Making carriers more logistics oriented won't change their invulnerability in groups to small gangs, but REDUCING that ability does. Also, reducing the logistics ability makes carriers more in-line with what the class is supposed to be doing in the first place - deal damage.
-- MC's Swedish squidshark
|
Baun
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:58:00 -
[828]
Originally by: Sinder Ohm
The big problems here are
1. MS pwning in low sec, they shouldnt be allowed to imo
2. Fighterswarms and lag = couldnt warp out in time where did my ship go
fix the problems and dont make new ones.
Amen.
This suggestion only accidentally fixes problem #1, while making problem #2 infinitely worse and essentially removing 2 ships classes from the game.
While fixing problem #2 is undoubtedly coding related, there are a great many ways to fix problem #1 that are not this terminally overbroad.
Here are two easy ones: 1. Disabling MS E-War invulnerability in low sec 2. Disabling MS ability to start offensive actions in low sec.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Callitari Mundani
The Antilles Legion Quantum Star Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:58:00 -
[829]
Originally by: Kiell Amor I think most of the salient points have already been raised, but just adding my name here to the masses who would sit their carriers at a POS instead of frontlining them if these changes were made...
Haha.
[img="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v652/explodyhead/sig-1.jpg"] |
Deacon Ix
Ascendant Strategies Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:58:00 -
[830]
Originally by: Strategos
Where was the carriers support? Oh that's right, you had none, because you think carriers should be able to kill anything solo. Maybe if you had activated triage you'd have known you are now immune to EW and those simple frigates would have been dead, or you know, you could of had the support that is supposed to be with you do it, but alas, you don't think carriers should need support and it should be able to pwn solo.
I loled
So I activate Triage and become immune to EWar...
Also I can't move
and I can't deploy fighters
so where does that leave the carrier...
I can rep the frigate locking me down \o/
I'ld love to know where you got the idea that carriers are WTF solo PWN mobiles, any carrier caught solo is going down
Originally by: Steini OFSI The most efficient way to get a dev response is to have the word beer somewhere in your thread.
|
|
TheBankingAlt
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:58:00 -
[831]
I agree that carriers should not be given a nerf such as this. Lets slow down and rethink these changes.
I think everyone should add their name in support of CCP changing their minds on this.
/signed
EDIT: oops. wrong account :(
|
Asred khan
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:59:00 -
[832]
I dont know if anyone else has brought this up but, it's a bad idea.
|
Vincent Law
Elite Storm Enterprises
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:00:00 -
[833]
This will totally cripple a carrier/mom's ability to take part in pos bashing. Fighter range is way too low to hit a tower with its sheilds up so the only other choice the pilot has is to use sentry drones with the appropriate range, which if this change goes through would be limited to 5 drones (dps of a butterknive).
|
Baun
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:00:00 -
[834]
Edited by: Baun on 21/10/2007 22:00:04
Originally by: Deacon Ix
I'ld love to know where you got the idea that carriers are WTF solo PWN mobiles, any carrier *OR MOTHERSHIP* caught solo is going down
Fixed
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
TheSystem
Caldari The Blackstone Group Brutally Clever Empire
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:00:00 -
[835]
Originally by: Asred khan I dont know if anyone else has brought this up but, it's a bad idea.
I lol'd
|
Sjoor
S.A.S Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:01:00 -
[836]
So this zulu guy is brought in to be the bad messenger. despite the reactions, you might push this through. After changes you say to zulu, time for you to find a new job, we need a new messenger to take the grief.
Well played imo. ----
Remove aggro reset on jump, remove secure can concord flagging |
DarkOne Knight
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:02:00 -
[837]
Originally by: Asred khan I dont know if anyone else has brought this up but, it's a bad idea.
Rofl....
|
Lobster Man
Murder-Death-Kill
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:02:00 -
[838]
Originally by: Pallidum Treponema Some of you don't recognize that carriers are fast replacing bs on the battle field. It is extremely frustrating in small group warfare to have a bunch of carriers and a mothership or 2 dropped on you as soon as your group agresses.
Now, THIS is a good point. I can definitely see how this can be an issue that needs to be adressed. In my opinion though, CCP is doing this completely in the wrong way.
The reason for why the "bunch of carriers and a mothership" is such a threat to the small or medium sized gangs isn't because of their firepower, but because of their ability to soak up the damage, making them invincible. Even if this change was performed, the "bunch of carriers and a mothership" would STILL be able to defeat the small gang at no risk to themselves, only slower.
However, if carriers instead lost or had reduced the ability to remote repair each others, the small gang would instead have a far better chance of killing off one or two of those carriers. This would also make large carrier groups riskier as their spidertank invulnerability would be largely negated, making it even more important to bring support ships to defend those carriers.
In fact, this logistics ability could instead be transfered to a dedicated logistics ship, perhaps even a capital logistics ship, with bonuses to capital reps allowing them to run three or four capital remote reps permanently.
Now, back to the small gang, wouldn't it be more fun if the small gang would be able to kill one of those carriers, rather than it still being near invulnerable but somewhat less of a damagedealer? Making carriers more logistics oriented won't change their invulnerability in groups to small gangs, but REDUCING that ability does. Also, reducing the logistics ability makes carriers more in-line with what the class is supposed to be doing in the first place - deal damage.
Just chiming in that CCP is not totally unwarranted in their concerns, they are just going at it the wrong way. There are more and more carriers appearing and they are replacing bs's. Even the previous example of bs-better-than-cruisers-at-killing is not a very good example with the difference between bs's. The disparity between bs's and carriers is HUGE.
I think they are being way overused for "willy-nilly" combat such as lowsec gate camping, but I think nerfing drones is NOT the way to fix it.
|
BOldMan
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:02:00 -
[839]
Are you playing eve, mr dev? Did you fly carrier on 0.0? I assume no.
|
Veinnail
Solstice Systems Development Concourse
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:02:00 -
[840]
Awful idea tbh.
this is the wrong direction to take Carriers.
carrier lvl 5, adv drone interfacing 5, dont waste my time. unless you're going to reimburse my game time spent on these skills.
SSDC Wants YOU! |
|
EveJoker
Minmatar Contraband Inc. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:04:00 -
[841]
Glasses can be half full, or half empty depending on your point of view. I cant help feel zulupark is looking at the half empty solution.
A couple of other ideas spring to mind as "glass half full" type of solutions depending on what CCP want to actually achieve. Heres one:
New ship class - Anti capital, able to scramble or jump jam capitals, and EITHER prevent warp OR Jump with a new anti capital scrambler and jammer. Similar specifications to an AF, bonus to capital scrambler or jammer cpu usage (or similar).
Adding a ship like that to the game would enhance the tactics of fighting capitals without substantially adding to the "blob tactics".
Give carriers the ability to jump when scrammed.
If CCP continue to balance the game by nerfing everything in site eventually we will all be back to flying our noob ships I guess. I prefer the idea of adding content and moving forward, rather than moving back to the days of frigate fighter bombing, and the associated node crashes.
CCP Please dont continue down the nerf path, let eve evolve to its potential. The issue with motherships in low sec is the extreme difficulty in holding them down. Develop new technology to assist in this rather than a kneejerk nerf reaction. Eve promises to get stale very quickly if you continue nerfing.
|
Sentinel Eeex
Caldari DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:05:00 -
[842]
Cmon CCP, tell us WHY you want to nerf carriers/motherships, ffs. You said you have concerns, but you never addressed them. What is bugging you?
Only possible thing that could be nerfed (as far as carriers go) is to make it impossible to use carriers for fight with lots of fighters, and armor/cap/shield transfer - at the same time.
I wouldn't mind if carriers would need to choose what role they want to fulfill, before getting into 'action'.
So, make it by default that carrier can use 0 fighters (but max number of drones). If you want to use more fighters, you have to fit a high-slot module, that would allow control of 3 or 4 more fighters. Using 2 or 3 of these should make it impossible to fit remote capital repper (CPU/PG wise - whatever suits you), for example.
So it'll be either repping things on battlefield, or it will be shooting things left and right. But not both things at once.
And don't touch motherships, ffs. Motherships ARE supposed to be scary.
If you really want to fix low-sec mothership ganking, introduce mothership capable scrambling module (CONCORD endorsed ;) that works only in 0.1 to 0.4 space
At the end of the day, it's not fighterswarm that makes people mad. It's the lag...
P.S: As a sidenote - fighters are not the only cause of lag. Have 80-100 battleships warp to a POS. They can sit there fine, not much lag. When they all start shooting POS (w/ effects off, no damage messages, etc), lag goes up insanely - even up to 2-3 minutes for mod activation. Fix that as well, damnit, before nerfing anything else.
P.P.S: Please reply asap, as I have added carrier training to my queue - would like to know if I should cancel it |
Ben Murder
The Diplomats Quantum Star Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:09:00 -
[843]
Edited by: Ben Murder on 21/10/2007 22:10:44 This idea deserves a nerf bat to the head of you devs why don't you fix bigger problems like the remaining game bugs before even thinking of nerfing another ship class. I see now why it takes 3 years for you to get back to our petitions your wasting it coming up with ideas that in my honest opinion don't make sense. Balancing sounds nice and all but I'm not for this one bit. Join Our Alliance now and enjoy a great team Our site link |
Baun
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:10:00 -
[844]
The most hilarious part of this suggestion is that even though carriers and motherships are extremely vulnerable NOW, CCP is introducing a new heavier interdictor class.
This change is being proposed before carriers/MS are made even weaker by the introduction of that class and we actually see the effects that that change has. What are they thinking?
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:11:00 -
[845]
Edited by: Kerfira on 21/10/2007 22:13:07 I advise Zulupark to actually play the game for a bit (in 0.0, not in carebear country), because he just displayed total ignorance to how things actually work.....
A change along these lines will simply make nobody fly carriers/mommas since they'll not be worth the ISK or training time.
Look at the battles actually going on. You'll NOT see capital fleets obliterating normal fleets. What you'll see at maximum is maybe 50-60 capitals, supported by 200-300 smaller ships (note: your game can't handle this of.c., but your other recent stupid POS changes mandates blobs), fighting fleets of the same caliber. The cap fleets ALREADY NEED the support fleet or they'll fail horribly, yet this is the objective you claim to pursue....
Ok, so your opinion might be that 50-60 is too much. Well, look at the cause for it! All the POS warfare changes you've done in the 2-3 last expansions have ALL seemed as they were DESIGNED to encourage blobbing, something your game quite frankly can't support!
Fix POS warfare! Fix blobbing! Fix lag!
THOSE are the problems that should warrant your attention. Not removal (yes, you are EFFECTIVELY suggesting that) of something that is already fairly well balanced (apart from mommies low-sec invulnerability).
If you want people to fly smaller ships, simply remove insurance in 0.0.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Muder Alt
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:12:00 -
[846]
Originally by: Baun The most hilarious part of this suggestion is that even though carriers and motherships are extremely vulnerable NOW, CCP is introducing a new heavier interdictor class.
This change is being proposed before carriers/MS are made even weaker by the introduction of that class and we actually see the effects that that change has. What are they thinking?
Thinking hmm I see too much of that just about the wrong stuff.
|
Adamus TorK
Amarr HUN Corp. HUN Reloaded
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:13:00 -
[847]
I don't like this idea.
Beacuse: I sense no logic. ---------------------------------
|
Yorda
Kudzu Collective Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:13:00 -
[848]
Edited by: Yorda on 21/10/2007 22:13:39
Refresh thread for piping hot rageÖ
Ok, CCP should really just sit down and chat about why 95% of Eve thinks this is terrible and then make a new Developer Blog actually explaining what problem you're concerned about and trying to fix. Then look for feedback there.
I think the problem is low sec gankers. And fighter lag maybe? Maybe its a concern about the long term dynamics of the game and fleet warfare? Ship inflation? As it stands now no one is really sure what is on your (CCPs) mind but the N-word has been mentioned next to a half baked idea so we are all plenty scared you're going to do something stupid to the game we like enough to pay for...
I think you would be pleasantly surprised at how helpful people would be on this matter. Close this thread when you have a dev blog prepared that really tries to address the issue. Hopefully that will change the tone of the discourse.
:f5:
I am still a goon so this signature stays |
Callitari Mundani
The Antilles Legion Quantum Star Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:13:00 -
[849]
Originally by: Reticenti 1000th post btw
w007
|
Smith
Caldari Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:15:00 -
[850]
Why not just remove Carriers and Motherships from the game? Same effect tbh.
|
|
Cadela Fria
Amarr Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:15:00 -
[851]
Originally by: Pallidum Treponema Edited by: Pallidum Treponema on 21/10/2007 21:59:16
Originally by: R1pp3r Some of you don't recognize that carriers are fast replacing bs on the battle field. It is extremely frustrating in small group warfare to have a bunch of carriers and a mothership or 2 dropped on you as soon as your group agresses.
Now, THIS is a good point. I can definitely see how this can be an issue that needs to be adressed. In my opinion though, CCP is doing this completely in the wrong way.
You had me stopped and going "WHAT???" at this sentence alone Palli, and R1pp3r's post didn't help. So tell, on the matter of lag, which is better:
1. 2 battleships, open cyno, add 3 carriers..or 1 mothership or! 2. 50 battleships
Please do reason your way out of that one.
Also, I'm tired of the the whole argument about carriers and motherships having to be more support ships. Look for christ sake it was CCP who, a year ago, maybe less, said "We want carriers and motherships to step up to the frontlines and fight!" and thus introduced the <no pos hugging and delegating fighters!> dealie. Great, awesome..Now you want them back at POS'es basically. I'm sorry but this occurs to me as "1 step forward, 2 steps back".
Secondly, what in the WORLD is up with all this balancing crap in the first place? Haven't we had enough of that already? Look at what it did Amarr reconships, or look what balancing did to other games, like Planetside..or SWG, or ULTIMA ONLINE! The first love of my life in MMORPG'ing, RUINED, because some goobers decided it was a good idea to give everyone a fair, even playing ground.
IT'S FLAVOR YOU'RE KILLING FOR GODS SAKE! (sorry about the caps, but I can't say this enough). Things are not supposed to be in perfect balance and be equal, and fair, or soft and mushy on the whole world. It's supposed to be exciting, challenging - Make you take a risk for once in your otherwise reptitive EVE Life! You don't always need a comfy world where everything isn't a big thing that can't be dealt with without too much effort.
I personally NEED the feeling of "z0mG *flailing arms* it's a mothership! Run! *trips cause pants drop* ARGH! *crawls away in panic*" with the end result of me magically surviving the incident, or going down burning. It gives the game FLAVOR! Gives it life and charm. Whether or not ya'll think I'm right or I'm just spewing crap out of my mouth, I firmly believe that an unbalanced world where some things are powerful beyond reason above other gives you a horizon to try and beat it by unimaginable odds, think creatively and forge friendship/alliances to bring whatever it is, down.
What will you strive for with things such as this in place? Certainly not capital ships. How much does a carrier cost to build? 650 mil? 700 mil? How much does it cost ot build a HAC? 30..40 mil? something like that? Divide that up and you have 16 HACs vs 1 carrier - Who wins? Pure hypothetically it's 1 carrier vs 16 HACs, thats it. Who wins?
For the love of all that is left great about EVE, Don't even consider alternatives for this, just SCRAP IT, PLEASE. Balanced - Is - BORING!! Period!
|
Ferocious FeAr
Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:15:00 -
[852]
Well I'm glad I decided not to train for capital ships. Shame on you CCP for even thinking about doing this. Many skill points and the time spent training will be put to waste if this goes through, I feel bad for those pilots.
Don't hate me, learn to love me |
Athanasios Anastasiou
Art of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:16:00 -
[853]
This is worse then then idea about closing the sell forums, and that says a lot.
|
Captain Plumbo
NorCorp Enterprise
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:18:00 -
[854]
About capitals being overpowered in lowsec: just make it impossible to cyno out within a certain distance to a warpgate, like 50km. The warpgate jumpfield interferes with the cyno jump field or something... I think this will make it a lot less attractive to gatecamp with a smartbomb gank mom.
|
Ferina Severen
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:18:00 -
[855]
The most hilarious part about all this besides the fact that it is a stupid idea is that it will only lead to even more blobbing since people will have to bring even more people they can assign their fighters to.
Why do you love the blob so much? Why do you say you don't want blobbing and will try to make small scale warfare more important. Then you introduce cyno jammers that take a MASSIVE BS blob to take out.
Then you give us bombers as anti blob weapon. Has any of you devs flown a bomber lately? I give you a small hint: They are totally and utterly useless.
Now to the real funny part: A while ago you guys wanted to get the carriers out of POS right into the battlefield. Now you wanna change them so they can only sit at a POS assigning fighters to frigates. You guys are brilliant!
Watching the changes lately one gets the impression there is a monkey sitting in a room hitting random buttons instead of devs actually thinking of improving the game.
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:20:00 -
[856]
Originally by: Ferina Severen Watching the changes lately one gets the impression there is a monkey sitting in a room hitting random buttons instead of devs actually thinking of improving the game.
Possibly my post is missing content, but......
QFT QFT QFT!!!!
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Malachon Draco
eXceed Inc. INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:21:00 -
[857]
Like I said earlier, I don't think it is a bad idea. And all you people screaming bloody murder, what did you think CCP would do after some alliances showed up with 50+ carriers and 10+ motherships? Any newer player looking at the game will say **** it, it takes at least a year or more to train for any of those ships, and without it I will be useless.
So I think a counter to the 'capital ships online' is a very good idea. Though it does not necessarily have to be a nerf of carriers/MS.
A few alternatives exist: - Capital smartbombs for dreads (to wipe out the fighterswarm in a few blasts) - A ship between BS and carrier to lessen the gap. Ideally something like a pocket dreadnaught, capable of using gates but with the firepower of 2-3 BS. - A few BS sized ships with bonuses to neutralizing range and amount, to be able to suck capitals dry. - Specific warpscramblers usable against Motherships. Just make one that only fits on a BS or bigger. That way you force the MS to actually bring support to clear enemy tackling BS. ------------------------------------------------
|
Torshin
Prophets Of a Damned Universe
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:21:00 -
[858]
I know that cost effectiveness is something over looked by devs and shouldn't be a major issue but from what I am reading if a Mothership is supporting its fleet and all of its support is destroyed and 10 enemy battleships remain and 2 interdictors you are going to make it so that mothership can only control 5 fighters?
A mothership should be able to defend ourselves, you already have the rorqual and the jump capable frieghter for hauling POS gear. -------------------------------------------
Backdoor Bandit - Unofficial leader of the new 'Post with your main or STFU' campaign. I'm Shinra and I'm the champion of Eve. |
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:22:00 -
[859]
Originally by: Cadela Fria
Things are not supposed to be in perfect balance and be equal, and fair, or soft and mushy on the whole world. It's supposed to be exciting, challenging - Make you take a risk for once in your otherwise reptitive EVE Life! You don't always need a comfy world where everything isn't a big thing that can't be dealt with without too much effort.
I personally NEED the feeling of "z0mG *flailing arms* it's a mothership! Run! *trips cause pants drop* ARGH! *crawls away in panic*" with the end result of me magically surviving the incident, or going down burning.
VERY good points and one I had not thought about. I think CCP is forgetting the point of having the fear shoot through you when all the sudden you see a carrier or a mothership drop in on you.
|
Lucifer66
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:22:00 -
[860]
It never ceases to amaze me how many bad ideas come from the devs in eve. Is there some kinda contest to see who can come up with the most stupid idea in the dev dept?
Carriers are CAPITAL ships. They require intense skill training. Therefore they should have awsome firepower to make all that skill training worth while. Nerfing them to being no better than a battleship is ********. Acually I think they should be given a boost not a nerf because as it is now once the fighters are blown up they are totally defensless because they have no other weapon. Whereas a battleship still has guns.
Honestly, have you ever seen an aircraft carrier that has no guns at all on it? Hell no cuz no military in the world would spend billions on a ship that is so easily dissabled. Aircraft carriers have loads of guns and missiles mounted on them. Including 3 or 4 of the Navy's Phalanx CIWS system which fires 20mm depleted uranium cannon rounds at 4500 rounds per minute to shootdown incoming missiles. (that spaces them about 1 inch behind the next depleted uranium round while they are flying through the air...ouch!) And BTW the current US Nimitz class carriers have 85 planes on board...not 5 :p Yeah sure some ppl will cry cuz this is a real life comparison, however do ppl get really stupid in the future in EVE? (maybe they find the devs stash of stupid pills in a time capsule or something)
Yes it is a capital ship... Yes it has alot of fighters and drones... No you cannot single handedly take it down with an ibis...(unless of course the pilot is afk mining in it having found said time capsule)
|
|
LordVodka
Earned In Blood Black Sun Cartel
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:24:00 -
[861]
Originally by: Strategos
Originally by: Icome4u
Originally by: Das Lol
Originally by: R1pp3r Someone in this thread has already mentioned it but I like the idea of fighters having a hard time tracking battleships. This would still allow for the tactical repair advantage...
You forgot the part where nobody smart uses carriers for that.
Considering any good pilot in a BS (if you suck at it don't freaking fly it) can tank fighters. Maybe not a MS full of fighters but hey... just GTFO. If you are tackled hey guess what! You deserve to die.
The carrier pilot is very unskilled SP wise if a battleship is tanking a full set of his fighters, but keep talking out of your ass, it doesn't make you look stupid at all. Only way a BS could tank a full set of carrier fighters is if the carrier only uses 1 damage type fighter and the BS it fully tanked vs that one type of damage.
strategos you really have no idea what your talking about. I both fly carriers and battleships, and i can EASILY tank 90% of the carriers fielded. You should realize with good skills most fighter loads do a mere 900 dps, this can easily be tanked in a drake even.
you need to understand that the fighters wont hit for max dps cause of tracking sig etc. So when a fighter load does a 900 dps on paper it's like 700 on the field and easily tankable by any bs pilot who has a clue.
|
GRIM REAPERjib
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:28:00 -
[862]
Edited by: GRIM REAPERjib on 21/10/2007 22:29:43 I actually fly a carrier and have done so in fleet and pos ops.
1. carriers are slow, have long lock times, can be bumped off a docking station (nano phoon) and killed (neut bs's), have crap defense (if this nerf comes)
2.have fitting issues (shield tanked niddy cant fit 2x dcu's and 2x remote shield reps, not even close eg, 157 cpu short and has a empty high slot !!! even with a armor tank its over on cpu or you have a empty high slot (no smart bomb) i think alot of other carries may have fitting issues but i havent flown them(the other 3) so i cant say
3. i don't see why this change is needed , can we have some insight as to why this needs to be done. and after this nerf why not fly a logistics cruiser, its more portable, ALOT cheaper and will do the same as 1 capital rep if not better, has hac level resists.
Heck with max skills a basilisk can push over 2k hp every 5seconds. (you can purchase 38 logistics ships for 1 carrier, 1 carrier can sustain about 1.55x the reping amount (2100 vs 3700 for max basilisk vs max niddy) however the carrier is more vulnerable and is more of an investment (isk, skills, time)
4. drones are fine unless you want to restrict all classes and drones to something like, PS this would be the more stupidest change ever if it were to take place frigs and destroyers 2 light drones cruisers 4 lights or 2 medium battle cruisers 5 lights or 4 mediums battleships 5 mediums or 2 heavy dread 5 medium or 5 heavy carriers 5 heavy or 5 fighter mother ship 10 heavy or 10 fighter.
|
Deacon Ix
Ascendant Strategies Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:29:00 -
[863]
Originally by: LordVodka
strategos you really have no idea what your talking about. I both fly carriers and battleships, and i can EASILY tank 90% of the carriers fielded. You should realize with good skills most fighter loads do a mere 900 dps, this can easily be tanked in a drake even.
you need to understand that the fighters wont hit for max dps cause of tracking sig etc. So when a fighter load does a 900 dps on paper it's like 700 on the field and easily tankable by any bs pilot who has a clue.
QFT
I had a corp mate who decided to have a go against a carrier in a BS, he dicided to take the p*ss a bit and tanked the fighters untill he was out of disrupter range at which point he warped off.
Originally by: Steini OFSI The most efficient way to get a dev response is to have the word beer somewhere in your thread.
|
Silver Wizard
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:30:00 -
[864]
What about the people that ARENT in huge corps ? What about those of us that SINGLE handedly made ALL the money for a carrier by ourselves. Those of us that play solo 90% of the time. We put in the SAME time training, and work 10 times harder to afford a carrier. Now I wont be able to use it by myself?
|
Ar'tee
DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:32:00 -
[865]
Q: Will the proposed changes help reduce lag? A: In no way whatsoever.
Q: Are the proposed changes thus completely irrelevant? A: Yes. Fixing lag should be priority #1 at CCP. In fact you guys should likely drop everything else and fix the basic game mechanics behind (at least) fighters and drones, but likely between ship interactions in space altogether (collisions etc.) The current model very obviously doesn't scale to the current number of players. Adding more hardware does not solve this (and never will).
Addressing this #1 issue will resolve both the current Jita debacle (*waves to the ca. 1000 players stuck in Jita right now* ), as well as a lot of the lag issues in 0.0 combat.
-- All I'll say with regard to the "war" is this - BoB never should have attacked ASCN. - Seleene |
Snakebloke
Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:34:00 -
[866]
yawn, its pretty clear that this is a dead issue. CCP will clearly NOT put this into effect because it would be like saying slavery is legal again, lets send some boats over to Nigeria (well maybe not quite that bad but u get the picture ) ------------------------
|
Roccia19
Caldari Paxton Industries
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:41:00 -
[867]
This seems to take away the incentive for pilots to train for carriers. More importantly why would someone who has invested lots of time and isk into this want to hand off the fighting capabilities of the ship to someone else that you may hardly know.
It seems to me that this ultimatley is failing to convert the capitals into a support role anyways. There is nothing to say that you can't still put 15-20 drones on a target and by no means is this enhancing other support capabilities.
The principle idea of shifting the role of capitals is sound, but this drone/fighter control idea seems to be missing that exact point.
|
Armoured C
Gallente Deviance Inc DeStInY.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:41:00 -
[868]
aye the single player will have to suck it up if this happens this is appauling
i would like to know how this even came up at the office as it ludercruis
if a battleship can already tank a CAPITAL ship then nerfing it will make it useless yeah wow it has logisitcal and even worst for agallente as it a drone race it relys on it hoards of drones fighters so that even worst that just nerfing carriers that you actually nerfing a drone race carrier
disgusting
|
Max Torps
Gallente eXceed Inc. INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:44:00 -
[869]
Originally by: Malachon Draco
- Capital smartbombs for dreads (to wipe out the fighterswarm in a few blasts) - A ship between BS and carrier to lessen the gap. Ideally something like a pocket dreadnaught, capable of using gates but with the firepower of 2-3 BS. - A few BS sized ships with bonuses to neutralizing range and amount, to be able to suck capitals dry. - Specific warpscramblers usable against Motherships. Just make one that only fits on a BS or bigger. That way you force the MS to actually bring support to clear enemy tackling BS.
This man has a point.
CyberSpace UK Radio Fanfest visit confirmed! Woohoo!
|
DarkBlackNight
Cola Corp
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:44:00 -
[870]
Late Aprils fools joke?
|
|
Inturist
Nuclear Reactor Inc INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:44:00 -
[871]
Comon CCP , 1000 posts saying that u r very wrong , and what ur actions ??? none ? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Taurgil
Konstrukteure der Zukunft
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:47:00 -
[872]
Edited by: Taurgil on 21/10/2007 22:47:25 Finally, I dont agree with the communities feeling that this is a BAD idea.
I, therefore, propose to refer to it as a DEAD idea.
|
Torshin
Prophets Of a Damned Universe
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:47:00 -
[873]
btw if you are around to balance things fix AFs -------------------------------------------
Backdoor Bandit - Unofficial leader of the new 'Post with your main or STFU' campaign. I'm Shinra and I'm the champion of Eve. |
Hi Lo
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:48:00 -
[874]
I have not had the chance to use Capital Ships and this is disappointing. It seems that the nerfing department feels that a M1 Abrams and a Honda Civic should be able to fight. Capital ships are big, angry ships and should rollover that Civic with ease.
|
lofty29
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:48:00 -
[875]
Sigh. You know what will happen?
Oh, carriers can only field 5 fighters now. Lets bring 2x as many!!
Goddamn this is the worst idea ever CCP ---
Latest Video : FAT- Camp |
Nagatok
AWE Corporation Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:49:00 -
[876]
Originally by: lofty29 Sigh. You know what will happen?
Oh, carriers can only field 5 fighters now. Lets bring 2x as many!!
Goddamn this is the worst idea ever CCP
OMFG i actually agree with lofty...SOMEONE GET A CAMERA NOW!!! PROGENITOR/INTREPID CROSSING pilot recruitment officer |
Doltish
The Arrow Project
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:50:00 -
[877]
This is astounding. I mean really, absolutely astounding.
I've got all the respect in the world for CCP for making one of the most fantastic games I've ever played - but sometimes I just shake my head in wonder at some of the things I read from the devs. Who could have possibly thought this was a good idea?
I don't even buy the premise that motherships and carriers currently can be fielded without support. What are you gonna do alone anyway? Sit on a gate and not get any kills? This is so far from a non-issue that I'm not even sure where to start debunking it!
|
Max Torps
Gallente eXceed Inc. INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:52:00 -
[878]
Originally by: Nagatok
Originally by: lofty29 Sigh. You know what will happen?
Oh, carriers can only field 5 fighters now. Lets bring 2x as many!!
Goddamn this is the worst idea ever CCP
OMFG i actually agree with lofty...SOMEONE GET A CAMERA NOW!!!
Screenie taken and will be forwarded, lol. But that's only because you've been harping on about your carrier since I've known you.
CyberSpace UK Radio Fanfest visit confirmed! Woohoo!
|
Dragy
Caldari Royal Hiigaran Navy YouWhat
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:52:00 -
[879]
Originally by: lofty29 Sigh. You know what will happen?
Oh, carriers can only field 5 fighters now. Lets bring 2x as many!!
Goddamn this is the worst idea ever CCP
sacred words my friend ...
|
Cyan Nuevo
Dudes In Crazy Killing Ships
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:53:00 -
[880]
Originally by: lofty29 Sigh. You know what will happen?
Oh, carriers can only field 5 fighters now. Lets bring 2x as many!!
Goddamn this is the worst idea ever CCP
People don't already bring as many carriers as possible? --- Proud Amarr pilot.
|
|
Nagatok
AWE Corporation Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:54:00 -
[881]
Originally by: Max Torps
Originally by: Nagatok
Originally by: lofty29 Sigh. You know what will happen?
Oh, carriers can only field 5 fighters now. Lets bring 2x as many!!
Goddamn this is the worst idea ever CCP
OMFG i actually agree with lofty...SOMEONE GET A CAMERA NOW!!!
Screenie taken and will be forwarded, lol. But that's only because you've been harping on about your carrier since I've known you.
yeh well i trained for the damn thing for what? a year? so let me get this stright some NOOB can take on a capital now....GET A BRAIN CCP.
P.S YO MAX HOW ARE YOU MAN
PROGENITOR/INTREPID CROSSING pilot recruitment officer |
Larz FoeHammer
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:56:00 -
[882]
Edited by: Larz FoeHammer on 21/10/2007 22:59:35 what an absolutely rediculas and begging your pardon.....stupid idea.
If these ships are becoming too common in the game, how about making them more difficult to build and more painful to loose.
And how in the Eve does this work with bandwith, obviously a Battleship shouldn't be able to have the bandwidth for controlling 5 fighters....certainly not a interceptor. Assigning fighters means they are handing over control, If the carrier had the badwidth then why would it have to assign the fighters?
Your breaking your own mechanics for ***** sakes.
|
Aladdin InSane
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:56:00 -
[883]
Edited by: Aladdin InSane on 21/10/2007 22:57:31 Anyone else get the feeling that this young dev, is getting a right bollocing?
|
Zyric
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:58:00 -
[884]
Originally by: The Ventrue Did you hire people from Sony who were responsible for SWG's failure?
This is my sentiment. To completely UNDO that much invested time and effort would be Gamebreaking and subscription ending for me. With the real time skill training of EVE, HUGE nerfs like this can destroy a player. You cant jsut skill up for another ship class....you have to start all that training time from scratch and hope the next nerf doesnt catch you.
|
Inflexible
Rytiri Lva
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:59:00 -
[885]
BTW anyone tried fighters on SiSi?
They obey commands 1 fighter per 2 seconds - terrible. Heavy drones are ok, at least for me.
|
Deacon Ix
Ascendant Strategies Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:59:00 -
[886]
Originally by: Aladdin InSane Edited by: Aladdin InSane on 21/10/2007 22:57:31 Anyone else get the feeling that this young dev, is getting a right bollocing?
After 15 pages we where wondering in corp if he had started crying yet, damm player base is a bunch of bullies
Originally by: Steini OFSI The most efficient way to get a dev response is to have the word beer somewhere in your thread.
|
Shock Blade
The Nemesis
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 23:00:00 -
[887]
Originally by: Aladdin InSane Anyone else get the feeling that this young dev, is getting a right bollocing?
Lol poor guy won't know what hit him. I'd say back the drawing board, but.... the whole idea sucked
|
Nagatok
AWE Corporation Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 23:01:00 -
[888]
Originally by: Deacon Ix
Originally by: Aladdin InSane Edited by: Aladdin InSane on 21/10/2007 22:57:31 Anyone else get the feeling that this young dev, is getting a right bollocing?
After 15 pages we where wondering in corp if he had started crying yet, damm player base is a bunch of bullies
hey man look i like one game designer as much as the next but stupid ideas shouldnt come up....now....if this idea is dropped straight away im sure the player base will forgive him. PROGENITOR/INTREPID CROSSING pilot recruitment officer |
Redback911
Malevolent Intentions
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 23:01:00 -
[889]
If ur gonna do this at least make cap reppers worth fitting, at the moment they SUCK.
In fact the whole remote repping system needs an overhaul.
|
Nuwa
Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 23:03:00 -
[890]
Edited by: Nuwa on 21/10/2007 23:05:49 I agree 100% with what is posted below
What's sad is carriers already basically have enough weak points that it's 2 steps from being a joke . I used to fly carrier , kinda glad I sold that char few weeks back
Originally by: Cadela Fria Edited by: Cadela Fria on 21/10/2007 22:20:56
Originally by: Pallidum Treponema Edited by: Pallidum Treponema on 21/10/2007 21:59:16
Originally by: R1pp3r Some of you don't recognize that carriers are fast replacing bs on the battle field. It is extremely frustrating in small group warfare to have a bunch of carriers and a mothership or 2 dropped on you as soon as your group agresses.
Now, THIS is a good point. I can definitely see how this can be an issue that needs to be adressed. In my opinion though, CCP is doing this completely in the wrong way.
You had me stopped and going "WHAT???" at this sentence alone Palli, and R1pp3r's post didn't help. So tell, on the matter of lag, which is better:
1. 2 battleships, open cyno, add 3 carriers..or 1 mothership or! 2. 50 battleships
Please do reason your way out of that one.
Also, I'm tired of the the whole argument about carriers and motherships having to be more support ships. Look for christ sake it was CCP who, a year ago, maybe less, said "We want carriers and motherships to step up to the frontlines and fight!" and thus introduced the <no pos hugging and delegating fighters!> dealie. Great, awesome..Now you want them back at POS'es basically. I'm sorry but this occurs to me as "1 step forward, 2 steps back".
Secondly, what in the WORLD is up with all this balancing crap in the first place? Haven't we had enough of that already? Look at what it did Amarr reconships, or look what balancing did to other games, like Planetside..or SWG, or ULTIMA ONLINE! The first love of my life in MMORPG'ing, RUINED, because some goobers decided it was a good idea to give everyone a fair, even playing ground.
IT'S FLAVOR YOU'RE KILLING FOR GODS SAKE! (sorry about the caps, but I can't say this enough). Things are not supposed to be in perfect balance and be equal, and fair, or soft and mushy on the whole world. It's supposed to be exciting, challenging - Make you take a risk for once in your otherwise reptitive EVE Life! You don't always need a comfy world where everything isn't a big thing that can't be dealt with without too much effort.
I personally NEED the feeling of "z0mG *flailing arms* it's a mothership! Run! *trips cause pants drop* ARGH! *crawls away in panic*" with the end result of me magically surviving the incident, or going down burning. It gives the game FLAVOR! Gives it life and charm. Whether or not ya'll think I'm right or I'm just spewing crap out of my mouth, I firmly believe that an unbalanced world where some things are powerful beyond reason above other gives you a horizon to try and beat it by unimaginable odds, think creatively and forge friendship/alliances to bring whatever it is, down.
What will you strive for with things such as this in place? Certainly not capital ships. "Argh a mothership!" Response: So what? Can't do anything "But..the name..it's size..the amount of fighters it has!..it's intimidating!" Reponse: Uh..nope, not anymore. *yawn* someone get a dictor, we'll take it down in a sec. "*completely disillusioned*...oh...but I thought...I..oh .." Response: Yeah well you thought wrong, wouldn't be balanced if such an awesome ship could fend for itself now would it.
How much does a carrier cost to build? 650 mil? 700 mil? How much does it cost to build a HAC? 30..40 mil? something like that? Divide that up and you have 16 HACs vs 1 carrier - Who wins? Pure hypothetically it's 1 carrier vs 16 HACs, thats it. Who wins?
For the love of all that is left great about EVE, Don't even consider alternatives for this, just SCRAP IT, PLEASE. Balanced - Is - BORING!! Period!
|
|
Xilimyth Derlin
OldBastardsPub SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 23:04:00 -
[891]
Edited by: Xilimyth Derlin on 21/10/2007 23:06:02 Agreed on this. I'm in the process of training for carriers and was going to use them just as the support ships envisioned here. The only question I have is if using the Triage Module, I understand personal commanded drones dropping to 0, but with this delegation change, is there anyway to allow the triage to be used when fighters are delegated?
Beyond this, no problem on my end with this. Definitely a step in the right direction. People have been using carriers badly, have gotten used to them working this way as the norm, and now refuse to adapt when actually making them more team oriented.
|
Snakebloke
Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 23:04:00 -
[892]
this sums it up for me
------------------------
|
The Kan
Gallente The Circle STYX.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 23:04:00 -
[893]
CCP here's one idea:
STOP HAVING IDEAS BEFORE EVE IS RUINED!
and zulupark PLS go back to wharever hole you came from, rly, i mean it.
shame my money pays you salary, you surely dont deserve it!
|
Akira Miyamoto
Caldari Paisti
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 23:08:00 -
[894]
Edited by: Akira Miyamoto on 21/10/2007 23:10:45
Originally by: The Kan CCP here's one idea:
STOP HAVING IDEAS BEFORE EVE IS RUINED!
and zulupark PLS go back to wharever hole you came from, rly, i mean it.
shame my money pays you salary, you surely dont deserve it!
Geez, stop smacking him, really. As he has said, this is an idea, not a ready concept. Yes, it's a bad idea but still... Personal attacks won't help your arguments tbh. _________________________________________________________
|
Clinically
Gallente Cold-Fury Southern Cross Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 23:11:00 -
[895]
Exactly how did this Zulupark guy get a new job? I hope this will be the first and last we hear from him.
Terrible idea, Pod him.
|
Max Torps
Gallente eXceed Inc. INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 23:13:00 -
[896]
Originally by: Aladdin InSane Edited by: Aladdin InSane on 21/10/2007 22:57:31 Anyone else get the feeling that this young dev, is getting a right bollocing?
I feel sorry for him. It's dev's revenge for the hassle he gave them while in Q&A. Possibly.
Zulupark - Hi guys, first day, what do you want me to do? Dev - Don't worry son, we won't send you out for tartan paint, there's an idea we've been tossing around that we think is cool. Announce it in your first blog. Zulupark - OK, cool! This will really make me popular with the community because it's about big ships and stuff! Thanks guys! Dev - Yeah go for it...no problem (chuckle)
CyberSpace UK Radio Fanfest visit confirmed! Woohoo!
|
Veinnail
Solstice Systems Development Concourse
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 23:14:00 -
[897]
Originally by: Torquemanda Corteaz
Originally by: Veinnail Awful idea tbh.
this is the wrong direction to take Carriers.
carrier lvl 5, adv drone interfacing 5, dont waste my time. unless you're going to reimburse my game time spent on these skills.
who in their right mind wastes the time for adv drone interfacing V for that one extra control mod, if you have carrier V theres barely any need to fit any DCMs O_o
anyway.... I agree with the 950 other posters when they say this is probably the single worst idea i've ever heard
why not?:)
SSDC Wants YOU! |
Dash Ripcock
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 23:14:00 -
[898]
I think you are going about this the wrong way CCP.
Carriers represent a serious investment. This isn't a T2 ship that takes a few weeks to train for and costs tens of millions. This is a ship that takes months, perhaps even years to train for and costs tens of billions (for a Mothership). People hone their entire game time to strapping into these ships. You can't just lead people in one direction, then suddenly decide to drag them in the other. I think you can see from the responses that people aren't particularly pleased.
Looking at some of the posts above some ideas really stand out:
Remove Local
Why has this taken so long to implement? Make Local chat only show people who have talked during your session in that system. It makes people more careful, stops annoying logging tactics and increases the need for scouts. Not knowing what is around the corner would even result in more fights as people don't know exactly what the other has in tow. When you think about it objectively, using a chat channel as an intelligence gathering tool is just plain broken.
Insurance
I like the idea of decreased or no insurance in 0.0 space. You can role-play it by saying the banks don't extend insurance to dangerous regions of space, since they can't hope to make any profit. It also means people will be more careful with their toys rather than throw them willy-nilly into a conflict. It will really hurt losing one of these things. It could, however, result in people not undocking. That said, if everyone is in the same boat, who cares? Go out and make someone hurt already.
Fighters
Simple really. If Fighter swarms are hurting the servers, why not just do to them what you did to drones? Tougher, nastier but less of them.
There are plenty of other avenues to explore before you meddle with the ships people have devoted countless game hours into getting.
|
Cadela Fria
Amarr Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 23:15:00 -
[899]
I strongly urge people not to attack Zulupark, as he's only the messenger, and I'm sure this isn't his idea alone. Plus, I really think it's the idea none of us like, not him.
|
Deacon Ix
Ascendant Strategies Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 23:16:00 -
[900]
Originally by: Cadela Fria I strongly urge people not to attack Zulupark, as he's only the messenger, and I'm sure this isn't his idea alone. Plus, I really think it's the idea none of us like, not him.
/signed
Originally by: Steini OFSI The most efficient way to get a dev response is to have the word beer somewhere in your thread.
|
|
Tar Ecthelion
Kryomek Industries
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 23:18:00 -
[901]
I can see the understanding behind it, but a carrier does need to have some offense to fight with if cought alone somewhere. What we really need is more smaller anti-capital ships, cost about the same as a tier 3 battleship with only one design in mind, to lock down and take out capital ships. Even I get fed up hearing about carriers and motherships ganking gates in low sec, give me a ship deisgned to take em out and maybe they might not be so brave as to gank n00bs and haulers all day in a multi billion isk ship.
I feel sorry for Zulupark to be honest, he's only said its being considered and wanted to know what everyone's feeling were on it, but all he's had off a lot of you is abuse and smack. Let him take a look through this thread, read the contructive comments, ignore the abusive ones and hopefully something good will come of it all.
.....
"When you kill a man it costs nothing to be polite" Winston Churchill
|
Luna Nilaya
Ultrapolite Socialites GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 23:18:00 -
[902]
Iceland will burn if this goes through. First you destroyed my Amarr Recons and now this?
|
Larz FoeHammer
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 23:18:00 -
[903]
Its the reprocessing of loot thats broken. Loot from a destroyed ship should need to be repaired, not reprocessed into an hours worth of mining. It should have to be repaired with minerals from mining, not repaired like structure dmg for isk.....
If mining was a more integral part of building these ships then they would be far less common.
just an addition to my previous statement. ships are fine, just too easy to replace.
|
Max Torps
Gallente eXceed Inc. INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 23:18:00 -
[904]
Originally by: Tar Ecthelion I can see the understanding behind it, but a carrier does need to have some offense to fight with if cought alone somewhere. What we really need is more smaller anti-capital ships, cost about the same as a tier 3 battleship with only one design in mind, to lock down and take out capital ships. Even I get fed up hearing about carriers and motherships ganking gates in low sec, give me a ship deisgned to take em out and maybe they might not be so brave as to gank n00bs and haulers all day in a multi billion isk ship.
I feel sorry for Zulupark to be honest, he's only said its being considered and wanted to know what everyone's feeling were on it, but all he's had off a lot of you is abuse and smack. Let him take a look through this thread, read the contructive comments, ignore the abusive ones and hopefully something good will come of it all.
CyberSpace UK Radio Fanfest visit confirmed! Woohoo!
|
Inflexible
Rytiri Lva
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 23:19:00 -
[905]
Originally by: Cadela Fria I strongly urge people not to attack Zulupark, as he's only the messenger, and I'm sure this isn't his idea alone. Plus, I really think it's the idea none of us like, not him.
/signed
|
Deacon Ix
Ascendant Strategies Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 23:20:00 -
[906]
Originally by: Tar Ecthelion I can see the understanding behind it, but a carrier does need to have some offense to fight with if cought alone somewhere. What we really need is more smaller anti-capital ships, cost about the same as a tier 3 battleship with only one design in mind, to lock down and take out capital ships. Even I get fed up hearing about carriers and motherships ganking gates in low sec, give me a ship deisgned to take em out and maybe they might not be so brave as to gank n00bs and haulers all day in a multi billion isk ship.
I feel sorry for Zulupark to be honest, he's only said its being considered and wanted to know what everyone's feeling were on it, but all he's had off a lot of you is abuse and smack. Let him take a look through this thread, read the contructive comments, ignore the abusive ones and hopefully something good will come of it all.
hey Tar o/
Originally by: Steini OFSI The most efficient way to get a dev response is to have the word beer somewhere in your thread.
|
Silvion
Kodan Armada
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 23:21:00 -
[907]
Originally by: Larz FoeHammer Its the reprocessing of loot thats broken. Loot from a destroyed ship should need to be repaired, not reprocessed into an hours worth of mining. It should have to be repaired with minerals from mining, not repaired like structure dmg for isk.....
If mining was a more integral part of building these ships then they would be far less common.
just an addition to my previous statement. ships are fine, just too easy to replace.
way to get utterly and completely off topic larz
|
Wodanonline
Pringles Inc. STYX.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 23:23:00 -
[908]
Originally by: Tar Ecthelion I can see the understanding behind it, but a carrier does need to have some offense to fight with if cought alone somewhere. What we really need is more smaller anti-capital ships, cost about the same as a tier 3 battleship with only one design in mind, to lock down and take out capital ships. Even I get fed up hearing about carriers and motherships ganking gates in low sec, give me a ship deisgned to take em out and maybe they might not be so brave as to gank n00bs and haulers all day in a multi billion isk ship.
I feel sorry for Zulupark to be honest, he's only said its being considered and wanted to know what everyone's feeling were on it, but all he's had off a lot of you is abuse and smack. Let him take a look through this thread, read the contructive comments, ignore the abusive ones and hopefully something good will come of it all.
maybe becouse every time they sugest or mention something it always happens exactly the way they sugested it. and i really hope all these replys do make them reconsider this time it must count for something.
|
CHAOS100
Momentum. The Reckoning.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 23:24:00 -
[909]
Next months news post: "Hey guys I am a new dev here! I had this great idea that I thought would have minimal impact on gameplay. I thought if we reduced all ships to have only 1 gun, the lag will reduce by over 75%! Thank you, I know you will have no problem with this change."
Thanks for destroying trillions of isk in investments, and thousands of wasted skill training hours, CCP.
So because Carriers cost 10 times as much as a battleship, and require years of training to be effective, they obviously should not have enough damage to break a tank, and be the equivalent of a few logistics ships. Motherships... gee I wonder how many logistics ships one could buy for 30 bil?
Titans have a jump bridge, doomsday, and amazing gang bonuses ...they are still worth 70bil. Motherships, lets see: bit better tank, immunity to ecm, 8 extra fighters. Hmm I wonder if that is worth the extra 25bil. --------------
|
Young Buck
Contraband Inc. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 23:25:00 -
[910]
As i posted in the game dev forum earlier: To be honest CCP i think this nerf is complete -blam!-. With that said my reasoning is this; i have spent countless months and invested extreme amounts of isk to make my carrier dream come true and now that i have gotten to that place you wanna take it all away. These ships are CAPITAL SHIPS... they are huge, it only makes sense that a ship of this class should be allowed to hold its own if need be. But you are making it so it wont even be able to defend itself if i don't have a gang there to assign fighters to. Me being able to directly control 5 fighters on my own without anyone else there is just -blam!-. We are talking about carriers and motherships here who by all rights should be able to control vast amounts of fighters on their own. CCP, your player base has invested too much in these capitals for you to ruin them in this fashion. Rethink this idea so I'm not stuck with a really expensive piece of junk please flying hospital ship.
|
|
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 23:25:00 -
[911]
Originally by: Cadela Fria I strongly urge people not to attack Zulupark, as he's only the messenger, and I'm sure this isn't his idea alone. Plus, I really think it's the idea none of us like, not him.
Agreed, it's not one "lone rogue CCP developer" that put up this dev blog. I am sure that this has been talked about and analyzed by several if not all of the CCP developers and content guys, and they collectively decided that this was a good enough idea to bring forth to the community to see how it was received.
The good news was that they brought it up as a possible idea. The bad news is that they are seemingly out of touch with the majority of the player base that they thought this was a good idea in the first place.
I think this goes back to the idea that I honestly don't think that CCP devs are playing this game enough.
Zulu was bringing forth an idea based upon pure stats. As with most things you cannot look at stats alone. And to Cadelas point, everything in this game does not need to be equal. It reminds me of the whole "redistribution of wealth" ideals tbh.
|
Jade Moonshadow
DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 23:31:00 -
[912]
Edited by: Jade Moonshadow on 21/10/2007 23:31:54 I'm not sure if this was touched on. If so, I apologize.
Give carriers the ability to "jump" a certain number of other ships with them. Perhaps using the Fleet (squad) and assign a certain number of ships based upon the skill of the carrier.
Carriers can take up to Cruiser/HAC/BC sized ships, while motherships can bring Indy/Battleships, etc.
If you are going to make such a drastic change to a carrier force, make them work as a carrier does, which is for the movement of the fleet, protection of the fleet.
|
Buckeroo Bonzai
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 23:32:00 -
[913]
Maybe this is how CCP "hazes" the new guy. You know like sending the new recruit around the motorpool looking for a bottle of brakelight fluid or a muffler bearing. |
Hailstorm
Applied Eugenics Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 23:34:00 -
[914]
Not much to say, just a terrible idea. There are dozens of other things that actually need fixing before you should even bother with this.
|
Cadela Fria
Amarr Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 23:38:00 -
[915]
Edited by: Cadela Fria on 21/10/2007 23:38:19
Originally by: XoPhyte
stuff
Well that's my whole point..Balanced is boring. It makes for dull game play, poor definition and a generally uninteresting world..
Here's a perfect example (atleast I think so), about a year ago, I decided to start playing planetside again, and they had these new fancy big bi-pedal robot mech type thingies. Now me being a big fan of mechwarrior, I was running across the battlefield and suddenly saw one coming over the hill and I immediately went "OMG ENEMY MECH AT <location> ARGH!" on teamspeak.
The response I got spoke for itself:
"Don't worry about it mate, they're weak and can be taken down easily by 1 grunt on the ground with EMP grenades and then placing landmines around them, and they have no firepower anymore since they were nerfed".
Sure enough, 2 minutes later, a guy from my outfit ran up as a single grunt to this huge hulking warmachine that takes FOREVER to earn points and kills to get into, did a few ninja moves and POP, it was dead.
...Shortly after I learned they used to be really powerful and tough to kill, LIKE THEY SHOULD BE, but..whiners cried nerf, it came. Few months later, PS was even more desolate then it was when I joined.
You see what I mean?
|
Han Horensii
Res Publica R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 23:40:00 -
[916]
Originally by: Cadela Fria I strongly urge people not to attack Zulupark, as he's only the messenger, and I'm sure this isn't his idea alone. Plus, I really think it's the idea none of us like, not him.
indeed, as many of us posted flame here (me included) that was not directed against that dev but against the frustration we feel seeing this game going mad patches after patches when many ppl here have been there since 2003...
it is an idea we do not want to see ingame, (we is 95%+ of the posters here), nada, never, forget it, trash it.
think better of improvements you could do to carriers instead like posted about drones icons control and so on ! (not only for carriers btw !)
|
Aidelon
Caldari AWE Corporation Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 23:44:00 -
[917]
It takes a matter of weeks to train a Battleship whereas it takes 1+ year to train for carrier.
The cost of the carrier is 10x that of a battleship. Mother ship costs are obviously exorbitant.
This change would make carriers more of a pain to fly than fun. And for all that training and cost these ships should be the pinnacle.
A different change is needed because this one is not good for the following reasons:
1) Makes carriers a pain to fly 2) 5x fighters = 100m. As much as I like my corp mates, 100m is an awful lot to just hand out in every battle, especially since fighters are easily destroyed. 3) Makes no sense for immersiveness. Why would I be able to have 20 fighters in my bay, but only use 5? Or have 15 out, but only control 5? It just doesn't make sense from a realism P.O.V.
Hey, I spent a year training for carrier on my alt. I spent 900m on the capital skill books. I bought my carrier at 1.1billion and 15 fighters at 20million (plus replacement fighters when they die, which is quite often!!!).
Carriers are a fighting machine. They should be very powerful. They have extreme cost and training requirements.
Make delegation impossible. Make carriers more susceptible to damage. But don't mess with its offensive firepower or fighter mechanics!
|
Klezz
FinFleet Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 23:46:00 -
[918]
This "Idea" is utterly utterly CRAP Carriers and MOMS are just fine , keep your dirty nerfbat OFF Like said a thousand times already , focus on whats REALLY bother your paying customers. Desync and massive lag issues !!!
|
Malachon Draco
eXceed Inc. INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 23:47:00 -
[919]
Originally by: Cadela Fria Edited by: Cadela Fria on 21/10/2007 23:38:19
Originally by: XoPhyte
stuff
Well that's my whole point..Balanced is boring. It makes for dull game play, poor definition and a generally uninteresting world..
Here's a perfect example (atleast I think so), about a year ago, I decided to start playing planetside again, and they had these new fancy big bi-pedal robot mech type thingies. Now me being a big fan of mechwarrior, I was running across the battlefield and suddenly saw one coming over the hill and I immediately went "OMG ENEMY MECH AT <location> ARGH!" on teamspeak.
The response I got spoke for itself:
"Don't worry about it mate, they're weak and can be taken down easily by 1 grunt on the ground with EMP grenades and then placing landmines around them, and they have no firepower anymore since they were nerfed".
Sure enough, 2 minutes later, a guy from my outfit ran up as a single grunt to this huge hulking warmachine that takes FOREVER to earn points and kills to get into, did a few ninja moves and POP, it was dead.
...Shortly after I learned they used to be really powerful and tough to kill, LIKE THEY SHOULD BE, but..whiners cried nerf, it came. Few months later, PS was even more desolate then it was when I joined.
You see what I mean?
I don't think CCP has a problem with Carriers or MS as such. And I would agree with you that having a big badass enemy ship to face can and should be awesome.
But how would you have felt if you were sitting in Planetside, and all of a sudden, 60 of those robots come charging over the hills, and all the enemies you meet can airdrop a couple of them on top of you at any point in time?
That is the issue.
This is not about the single carrier/MS, its about the hordes of them. ------------------------------------------------
|
Kronn Blackthorne
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 23:49:00 -
[920]
Edited by: Kronn Blackthorne on 21/10/2007 23:50:11 a nerf needed ? oki make fighters as strong as a 1000 dps battleship ( including more shield / armor / structure / resists ) and i ll be happy .. oh wait it will screw the delegate thingy since i don t wanna see a nano frig with the firepower of 5 BS ... also 5 fighters for carriers sounds fine , but motherships should have 10 , since the yare supposed to be " stronger " ( )
The Frenchy |
|
Acacia Everto
Wings of Redemption Black Flag Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 23:49:00 -
[921]
If anything, Carriers need a buff to their electronics package. It's too easy to turn one off with a Maulus and make it useless as a support or offensive ship. Signature My signature exceeds the 24000 byte limit allowed on the forums by 844 bytes, oh noes. |
Cadela Fria
Amarr Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 23:50:00 -
[922]
Originally by: Malachon Draco
Originally by: Cadela Fria Edited by: Cadela Fria on 21/10/2007 23:38:19
Originally by: XoPhyte
stuff
Well that's my whole point..Balanced is boring. It makes for dull game play, poor definition and a generally uninteresting world..
Here's a perfect example (atleast I think so), about a year ago, I decided to start playing planetside again, and they had these new fancy big bi-pedal robot mech type thingies. Now me being a big fan of mechwarrior, I was running across the battlefield and suddenly saw one coming over the hill and I immediately went "OMG ENEMY MECH AT <location> ARGH!" on teamspeak.
The response I got spoke for itself:
"Don't worry about it mate, they're weak and can be taken down easily by 1 grunt on the ground with EMP grenades and then placing landmines around them, and they have no firepower anymore since they were nerfed".
Sure enough, 2 minutes later, a guy from my outfit ran up as a single grunt to this huge hulking warmachine that takes FOREVER to earn points and kills to get into, did a few ninja moves and POP, it was dead.
...Shortly after I learned they used to be really powerful and tough to kill, LIKE THEY SHOULD BE, but..whiners cried nerf, it came. Few months later, PS was even more desolate then it was when I joined.
You see what I mean?
I don't think CCP has a problem with Carriers or MS as such. And I would agree with you that having a big badass enemy ship to face can and should be awesome.
But how would you have felt if you were sitting in Planetside, and all of a sudden, 60 of those robots come charging over the hills, and all the enemies you meet can airdrop a couple of them on top of you at any point in time?
That is the issue.
This is not about the single carrier/MS, its about the hordes of them.
Dude that's just great planning on the enemy's part, thats not the game creator's fault.. If the enemy had the foresight, discipline and organisation to pull something like that off, I darn well say they deserve to. Why should the big warmachines get punished just because people were dedicated and passionate enough to work together and form an army like that? You know?
|
Poco Curante
Blueprint Haus Hydra Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 23:52:00 -
[923]
Combative dev post. Combative response.
Didn't see that coming... ;)
|
LORD DANIEL
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 00:00:00 -
[924]
I think this is stupid.
|
Sirus Ade
Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 00:00:00 -
[925]
Carriers are nerfed enough compared to dreads, the triage mode is a joke and to nerf carriers even more is like a slap in the face for all those people that have trained heard to become uber carrier pilots.
Also as has been said, a mothership isn't a 'win low sec' button, so why fix something that ain't broke.
----------
|
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 00:01:00 -
[926]
Edited by: XoPhyte on 22/10/2007 00:04:58
Originally by: Malachon Draco But how would you have felt if you were sitting in Planetside, and all of a sudden, 60 of those robots come charging over the hills, and all the enemies you meet can airdrop a couple of them on top of you at any point in time?
That is the issue.
This is not about the single carrier/MS, its about the hordes of them.
I would consider looking at my recruitment policies and looking at ways to encourage a tight knit group of highly skilled players who were passionate enough about the game and willing to invest time and energy to put themselves at the top of the PVP pyramid, and find players that were willing to risk billions of isk at any given time in any given battle.
I would not ask that the game be changed to compensate for the lack of this effort.
Blobbing at any level has proven to be bad for the game, so don't just single out 60 carriers when there are problems with 100 battleships, 200 cruisers or literally hundreds of frigates.
|
Mack Dorgeans
Camelot Innovations
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 00:01:00 -
[927]
So, what happens when you have chaining carriers? Do they all repair each other and assign each other fighters? Seems like this only hurts small groups and not blobs, so it is in essence a boost to blob warfare.
|
kaelin
OffBeat Creations PURGE.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 00:03:00 -
[928]
As a Carrier Pilot who spent nearly 6 months saving up for the thing, in a corp that runs a VERY tight ship, as in low numbers of experienced pilots, we don't always HAVE another pilot to designate fighters to. When we do designate fighters they invariably end up in the hands of some 'tard who treats them like regular drones, i.e. thinks they're expendable, then gets upset because you'd like some compensation for the 100-odd Mil, he just got blown to smithereens...
no, I don't like the idea of giving away 100m to some mug who doesn't understand that fighters aren't "just drones" just to field the fire-power of my OWN ship...
in response to something mentioned in one of the first posts: Yes, it would mean carrier pilots would be spending an inordinate amount of time designating fighters, and thus, making them a chore to use in fleet operations of ANY size, clogging up intel channels and such with "who's got my fighters?" and "need fighters over here!"
= no fun.
now, on a more personal note. I use my carrier much like a mobile home, I operate largely on my own, I rat in it, I mine in it (sacrilege I know, but I really couldn't care) dropping my damage output 50% is well... I think it's unfair.
|
Mos7Wan7ed
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 00:04:00 -
[929]
Originally by: ZaKma You keep claiming you want to encourage small scale pvp, yet every single change you make keeps encouraging blobbing.
So now instead of nice cap vs cap fights while the support fights it out on their own, you'll have 50 capitals and 500 support on grid. Every carrier / mom will be assigning fighters to their gang members. The current hardware can't even handle the current state of eve, let alone if every ship in a fleet fight has fighters assigned and starts sending them around.
This also directly nerfs carrier's firepower in comparison to other capital ships. If you do this, then let carriers fit capital guns and give them a damage bonus (obviously not as much as a sieged dread) and better tracking.
Also, this is not balancing. I don't care what you say. This is a fundamental change in how a ship works, completely changing it's current use and tactics. Doing such a change would be fine a week or a month after releasing them.. but not after so long.
i agree...
|
Nytemaster
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 00:04:00 -
[930]
Four frigs can take out a cruiser. Four crusiers can take out a battleship. Why cannot four battleships take out a carrier? Don't tell me that you deserve to live longer just because a ship cost more to fly and is more expensive. That argument does not hold water and I will prove it to you by doing a common sense analysis on ship classes.
The current progression of ship designs versus what they can kill do not support the claim that the bigger the more you should kill. In fact, the bigger the ship class, the more isk you are likely to lose by lesser ships. I will give you an example of what progression in ship classes .
Four frigates worth 500k each can take out a 5m cruiser. Risk ratio by the frigates are favorable by 5:2. Four cruisers worth 5m each can take out a 60m battleship. Risk ratio by the cruisers are favorable by 3:1.
So where do capitals stand when four battleships worth 60m attack one? 240m versus 1.2b isk is a ratio of 5:1 and seems to follow the same progression.
Right now it takes quite a bit more than the firepower of four battleships valued at 60m each to take out a single carrier. Therefore, the arrangement of capitals in the foodchain has already been skewed and this correction is possibly needed to keep capitals from becoming the win / all button
Not to say that capitals need or do not need a nerf, just disputing the argument that investment does not always equal return or that it should. In fact as you risk a bigger class ship you investment versus return should drop because of the inherent risk you take on small classes that are worth less working in tandum have on killing you.
If this does not occur, you have inadvertenly created a situation where the little man (the ones many complain are getting screwed in this) are required to spend billions upon billions just to compete against those who are already established. This allows the few to rule over the many above and beyond their intended roles.
The real danger is allowing these ships to thrive to the point where they are required to make any headway in the universe. I believe we are and have already past that point. A correction is exactly what is needed to reduce the capital-lagfest to what was their use and intended role, not solo pwnmobiles and super capital fleets that no one can contend with.
|
|
Viro Melchior
Interstellar eXodus R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 00:05:00 -
[931]
The fighter nerf I'm willing to listen to. Maybe it can work without messing things up too much. But the nerf to general drone control is just bad. Carriers are drone boats. If you did this, the Moros would be a better non-fighter-droneboat than the Thanatos. Not cool.
|
slip66
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 00:09:00 -
[932]
Do you even play this game outside of your little test world?
Originally by: StOrM ViPeR Theres a skill called surgical strike in game I've learned that it actually stands for Band of Brothers |
Clavius XIV
Auctoritan Syndicate Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 00:10:00 -
[933]
Originally by: Cadela Fria Here's a perfect example (atleast I think so), about a year ago, I decided to start playing planetside again, and they had these new fancy big bi-pedal robot mech type thingies. Now me being a big fan of mechwarrior, I was running across the battlefield and suddenly saw one coming over the hill and I immediately went
"OMG ENEMY MECH AT <location> ARGH!" on teamspeak.
The response I got spoke for itself:
"Don't worry about it mate, they're weak and can be taken down easily by 1 grunt on the ground with EMP grenades and then placing landmines around them, and they have no firepower anymore since they were nerfed".
You are right. It IS a perfect example.
If you actualy played PS before and after BFR were introdused you would know why they were nerfed. They totally ruined outdoor gameplay. and pretty much everyone who had ground certs switched to BFRs.
|
Cadela Fria
Amarr Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 00:10:00 -
[934]
Originally by: Nytemaster
If this does not occur, you have inadvertenly created a situation where the little man (the ones many complain are getting screwed in this) are required to spend billions upon billions just to compete against those who are already established. This allows the few to rule over the many above and beyond their intended roles.
I hope you know the one big major flaw in your entire post, is this, which is the core of your argument aswell. "The little man has to spend billions upon billions of isk to compete with those already established" - This is where I need you to tell me how those who are already established, became established in the first place...
|
Veng3ance
Prophets Of a Damned Universe
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 00:12:00 -
[935]
Edited by: Veng3ance on 22/10/2007 00:12:04 BOOOOOO
Two thumbs down!
|
Cadela Fria
Amarr Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 00:12:00 -
[936]
Edited by: Cadela Fria on 22/10/2007 00:12:37
Originally by: Clavius XIV
Originally by: Cadela Fria Here's a perfect example (atleast I think so), about a year ago, I decided to start playing planetside again, and they had these new fancy big bi-pedal robot mech type thingies. Now me being a big fan of mechwarrior, I was running across the battlefield and suddenly saw one coming over the hill and I immediately went
"OMG ENEMY MECH AT <location> ARGH!" on teamspeak.
The response I got spoke for itself:
"Don't worry about it mate, they're weak and can be taken down easily by 1 grunt on the ground with EMP grenades and then placing landmines around them, and they have no firepower anymore since they were nerfed".
You are right. It IS a perfect example.
If you actualy played PS before and after BFR were introdused you would know why they were nerfed. They totally ruined outdoor gameplay. and pretty much everyone who had ground certs switched to BFRs.
Yeah and there were a lot of people weren't there?...See my point? I am also betting you right now, that not everyone had BFR certs, and they certainly weren't unbeatable either.
|
Zaibatsu Gaijin
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 00:13:00 -
[937]
I was trying to come up with something constructive and deep, but CCP's consistently ******** idea's of balancing lately just made me lose interest.
It's called a god damn ******* carrier for a reason.
|
Xilimyth Derlin
OldBastardsPub SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 00:15:00 -
[938]
Originally by: Poco Curante Combative dev post. Combative response.
Didn't see that coming... ;)
I don't quite see how it's combative on the Dev post side. All it said was they're trying to make carrier more fleet ships rather then solo + alt ships. I don't see THAT big of a problem with it.
|
Vinifera
Gallente Asguard Security Service
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 00:16:00 -
[939]
I think nerfing the carriers in this way is a very bad idea. I've seen plenty of carriers get taken down by a well organized gang.
Not to mention, changing this now at this stage is going to REALLY make me angry. I've just spent the last 6+months training towards a carrier. If I had any idea CCP was going to gank me at the last minute, I would have spent this time training command ships instead....
grrrrrrr...
|
TheSystem
Caldari The Blackstone Group Brutally Clever Empire
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 00:17:00 -
[940]
Edited by: TheSystem on 22/10/2007 00:17:38
Originally by: Viro Melchior The fighter nerf I'm willing to listen to. Maybe it can work without messing things up too much. But the nerf to general drone control is just bad. Carriers are drone boats. If you did this, the Moros would be a better non-fighter-droneboat than the Thanatos. Not cool.
QFT
With this nerf, the moros will do more drone DPS than a carrier. a CARRIER. where does that logic make any sense at all?
|
|
Hinterwaeldler
Kombatans
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 00:21:00 -
[941]
Whatever they give you to smoke at CCP, it's mean not to share ...
|
Nytemaster
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 00:22:00 -
[942]
Edited by: Nytemaster on 22/10/2007 00:24:10 Edited by: Nytemaster on 22/10/2007 00:22:53
Originally by: Cadela Fria
Originally by: Nytemaster
If this does not occur, you have inadvertenly created a situation where the little man (the ones many complain are getting screwed in this) are required to spend billions upon billions just to compete against those who are already established. This allows the few to rule over the many above and beyond their intended roles.
I hope you know the one big major flaw in your entire post, is this, which is the core of your argument aswell. "The little man has to spend billions upon billions of isk to compete with those already established" - This is where I need you to tell me how those who are already established, became established in the first place...
And this is where I tell you that the more established players who have ships that outperform as intended, the more difficult it becomes to establish yourself as a force to contend with. While there will always be a certain degree of truth to etablished players having it easier than those who have to make their way in, when a ship class becomes too powerful, that becomes much more difficult to attain.
|
FewGoodMen
Gallente Gordon Brown Fan Club
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 00:22:00 -
[943]
What a terrible idea
Have you ever flown a capital Zulupark?
Or for that matter ever been to 0.0 or participated in a cap fight?
|
Myndpyre Ryche
Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 00:24:00 -
[944]
I categorically disagree with the suggested changes to the carriers and fighters.
I think you need to find someone who better understands capital ship combat to handle this aspect of the game.
|
FewGoodMen
Gallente Gordon Brown Fan Club
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 00:25:00 -
[945]
You want more capitals on the field so you make them useless on the field apart from to do the job of a logistics cruiser at 50 times the cost and half the effectiveness
They will never leave pos now
USE YOUR HEAD MAN
|
Icome4u
Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 00:25:00 -
[946]
Nytemaster... lol are you serious or simply stupid?
This sig demonstrate the problem is not drones or fighters but the amount of people show up to blobs and fleets. |
jokerb
Caldari THE INQUISITI0N
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 00:25:00 -
[947]
Originally by: TheSystem Edited by: TheSystem on 22/10/2007 00:17:38
Originally by: Viro Melchior The fighter nerf I'm willing to listen to. Maybe it can work without messing things up too much. But the nerf to general drone control is just bad. Carriers are drone boats. If you did this, the Moros would be a better non-fighter-droneboat than the Thanatos. Not cool.
QFT
With this nerf, the moros will do more drone DPS than a carrier. a CARRIER. where does that logic make any sense at all?
It doesn't at all, so the nerfbat would swing again, and again and again ad infinitum. The solution is probably a mid point class of ships between BS and Caps tailored specifically at cap destruction. 1 ew/neut/nos boat per race, 1 gank boat per race. That eliminates nerfs and adds to the repertoire. It also adds more training, which CCP is most keenly interested. Add do not subtract makes people happier even if it is a stealth nerf to older content. People would be excited with new stuff not angry because you guys decided to up and ruin months and years of training. Lots of people in here have plenty of examples of how this has ruined their game play in other games, so the left to come here. They most likely will leave unsatisfied from here if the behavior (lazy, easy way, imo) is continued by these developers.
|
Sammell
Amarr The Nova Foundation
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 00:26:00 -
[948]
I don't see how reducing their battle ability would increase their use as support ships?
|
Cadela Fria
Amarr Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 00:27:00 -
[949]
Originally by: Nytemaster Edited by: Nytemaster on 22/10/2007 00:24:10 Edited by: Nytemaster on 22/10/2007 00:22:53
Originally by: Cadela Fria
Originally by: Nytemaster
If this does not occur, you have inadvertenly created a situation where the little man (the ones many complain are getting screwed in this) are required to spend billions upon billions just to compete against those who are already established. This allows the few to rule over the many above and beyond their intended roles.
I hope you know the one big major flaw in your entire post, is this, which is the core of your argument aswell. "The little man has to spend billions upon billions of isk to compete with those already established" - This is where I need you to tell me how those who are already established, became established in the first place...
And this is where I tell you that the more established players who have ships that outperform as intended, the more difficult it becomes to establish yourself as a force to contend with. While there will always be a certain degree of truth to etablished players having it easier than those who have to make their way in, when a ship class becomes too powerful, that becomes much more difficult to attain.
Yes that's all well and good, but uhm... ...You uhm, well..Still didn't tell me how the established players, BECAME established.
|
Ket Halpak
Cold-Fury Southern Cross Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 00:29:00 -
[950]
I belive this change would effectivly boost blobs and nerf small gangs. Also, this is a huge nerf to the DPS of a carrier. If this idea were to go ahead, carriers would need a 100% drone damage bonus to keep them at their current effectivness, while reducing the overall drones on the field.
Quote: I strongly urge people not to attack Zulupark, as he's only the messenger, and I'm sure this isn't his idea alone. Plus, I really think it's the idea none of us like, not him.
/Signed _ This is a dev trap sig. It has beer in it. Lets see how many we can catch :) *Free Beer, Don't mind the spikes* |
|
Jordan Musgrat
Convergent Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 00:31:00 -
[951]
The best alternative here was to make even more use of the gang system, make fighters launchable only if there are 5 or more support in system, maybe even on grid. Or maybe 5 fighters as usual, anytime, then 1 more for every 5 in gang, in system. A great effect of this is that it reduces the numbers of fighters in huge 400 man gate camps (less lag) and makes carriers far more valuable for their support, as with only 5 fighters, their offenseive capabilities are on par with a single BS. But leave the MS alone please, there aren't enough to be concerned about lag from all the MS blobs yet :p -----------
Primary is family values, secondary is 0.0... |
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar MASS HOMICIDE Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 00:34:00 -
[952]
I think peopel must keep in mind the problem targeted by CCp are not 2 or 3 carriers in frotn line. But fleets made entirely of carriers, like 30 or more of them that are becoming almost common. And are no way fun to 99.99% of eve.
If I was to give a solution, I woudl start by:
when you deploy fighters only 1 per second comes out and when rescooping also only 1 per second. Make Fighteres NEE direct orders to attack anything. Reduce fighter track a bit, so that for example a BS with AB can avoid reasonable part of its damage.
Reduce the nubmer of DRONES to 5 at any moment.
Just an extra ranting :
To people saying its easy to kill fighters with smartbobms in a BS. Just lol, run the numbers, you will stay a whole week to kill fighters with for example 2 SB.
If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough |
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar MASS HOMICIDE Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 00:36:00 -
[953]
Originally by: XoPhyte Edited by: XoPhyte on 22/10/2007 00:04:58
Originally by: Malachon Draco But how would you have felt if you were sitting in Planetside, and all of a sudden, 60 of those robots come charging over the hills, and all the enemies you meet can airdrop a couple of them on top of you at any point in time?
That is the issue.
This is not about the single carrier/MS, its about the hordes of them.
I would consider looking at my recruitment policies and looking at ways to encourage a tight knit group of highly skilled players who were passionate enough about the game and willing to invest time and energy to put themselves at the top of the PVP pyramid, and find players that were willing to risk billions of isk at any given time in any given battle.
I would not ask that the game be changed to compensate for the lack of this effort.
Blobbing at any level has proven to be bad for the game, so don't just single out 60 carriers when there are problems with 100 battleships, 200 cruisers or literally hundreds of frigates.
the issue is the game is not made for your little elite only. Its made for the 1 day old noob as much as for the 2003 player. Elitism and arrogance has no place on game design and game balance decisions.
If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough |
Draconis Vidi
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 00:37:00 -
[954]
You know what? A carrier SHOULD be able to nuke a battleship. and fighters aren't the end all and be all, matter of fact, they really suck at tryong to kill anything SMALLER than a Battleship. and well, if you get TWO battleships or more on a carrier well,it has trouble. and if a SMALL ship comes in and binds it up, Well it has trouble. Leave a cripple well enough alone and go pick on interceptors.
|
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 00:39:00 -
[955]
Edited by: XoPhyte on 22/10/2007 00:44:14
Originally by: Kagura Nikon
Originally by: XoPhyte Edited by: XoPhyte on 22/10/2007 00:04:58
Originally by: Malachon Draco But how would you have felt if you were sitting in Planetside, and all of a sudden, 60 of those robots come charging over the hills, and all the enemies you meet can airdrop a couple of them on top of you at any point in time?
That is the issue.
This is not about the single carrier/MS, its about the hordes of them.
I would consider looking at my recruitment policies and looking at ways to encourage a tight knit group of highly skilled players who were passionate enough about the game and willing to invest time and energy to put themselves at the top of the PVP pyramid, and find players that were willing to risk billions of isk at any given time in any given battle.
I would not ask that the game be changed to compensate for the lack of this effort.
Blobbing at any level has proven to be bad for the game, so don't just single out 60 carriers when there are problems with 100 battleships, 200 cruisers or literally hundreds of frigates.
the issue is the game is not made for your little elite only. Its made for the 1 day old noob as much as for the 2003 player. Elitism and arrogance has no place on game design and game balance decisions.
And by your logic you should be a millionare as soon as you are born just like some other rich guy that had to work hard to get there, because you don't really want to put any effort into anything.
I was the guy in a frigate as well, and I worked my butt off to get where I am. I am sorry if you have not done the same, but I, and others, should not be published due to your own laziness.
Should we then nerf battleships because the 1 day old character can't fly that either? I have an idea, lets all fly around in ibis's!!!!
I remember being in low sec a few months old and seeing my first carrier cyno in (a shinra guy). I quickly looked up carriers and saw there potential, and then layed a gameplan together to get myself into one. I didn't start a whine fest that because I couldn't fly a carrier he shouldn't be able to either, or that my dominix I was flying at the time should be just as powerful as his carrier.
|
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar MASS HOMICIDE Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 00:41:00 -
[956]
Originally by: Draconis Vidi You know what? A carrier SHOULD be able to nuke a battleship. and fighters aren't the end all and be all, matter of fact, they really suck at tryong to kill anything SMALLER than a Battleship. and well, if you get TWO battleships or more on a carrier well,it has trouble. and if a SMALL ship comes in and binds it up, Well it has trouble. Leave a cripple well enough alone and go pick on interceptors.
on a small scale warfare that is easy to balance. But how do you make balance when there are 30 Carriers at a gate and when your fleet warps there its all dead before loadign grid because the fighters did almost all the work alone withut almost any needing of human help?
Not easy to reach a balance that work on both situations.
If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough |
Cadela Fria
Amarr Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 00:43:00 -
[957]
Originally by: Kagura Nikon
Originally by: XoPhyte Edited by: XoPhyte on 22/10/2007 00:04:58
Originally by: Malachon Draco But how would you have felt if you were sitting in Planetside, and all of a sudden, 60 of those robots come charging over the hills, and all the enemies you meet can airdrop a couple of them on top of you at any point in time?
That is the issue.
This is not about the single carrier/MS, its about the hordes of them.
I would consider looking at my recruitment policies and looking at ways to encourage a tight knit group of highly skilled players who were passionate enough about the game and willing to invest time and energy to put themselves at the top of the PVP pyramid, and find players that were willing to risk billions of isk at any given time in any given battle.
I would not ask that the game be changed to compensate for the lack of this effort.
Blobbing at any level has proven to be bad for the game, so don't just single out 60 carriers when there are problems with 100 battleships, 200 cruisers or literally hundreds of frigates.
the issue is the game is not made for your little elite only. Its made for the 1 day old noob as much as for the 2003 player. Elitism and arrogance has no place on game design and game balance decisions.
So now laziness, procrastination, disorganisation and such gets rewarded? Dedication, teamwork and passion get's punished?
I'm sorry Sir/Madam, but I don't see the connection, nor logic for that matter...
Bear with me I'm not attacking you, I'm just saying we were all small fries at some point or another, and our drive, dedication and teamwork got many of us.."big guys" (even though I don't consider myself as such), to where we are now.
Sure, you might not like the attitude and that's fine..but reward comes at the price of hard work, it always has and it always should. Are you saying BoB sat on their collective butts this whole time and did nothing to achieve what they have?
|
Dracon Vidi
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 00:43:00 -
[958]
30 carriers at a gate? Well anything coming in SHOULD be buggered. or should have taken the long way home.
|
Refazed
The Silent Rage
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 00:45:00 -
[959]
Why is it so bad to have a ship which takes significant time and effort to train for and purchase require significant time and effort for someone else to kill? You should not be able to kill everything else in game without preparation and the right tools.
"But its not fair that the guy who spent a year and 40Bil training and buying a mom toasted my t1 fitted bs in 10 seconds flat because I was too stupid to get a scout for that gate!" Eve isn't supposed to be fair. Eve is supposed to be harsh. I don't go up against a tank with a ak-47 and expect to win. Neither do I go up against a carrier with a battleship in eve and expect anything other then a lossmail.
The tools to kill Moms and especially carriers are already in game. People just need to get off their lazy backsides and use them.
|
Gyle
Caldari Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 00:45:00 -
[960]
Originally by: Kagura Nikon
Originally by: Draconis Vidi You know what? A carrier SHOULD be able to nuke a battleship. and fighters aren't the end all and be all, matter of fact, they really suck at tryong to kill anything SMALLER than a Battleship. and well, if you get TWO battleships or more on a carrier well,it has trouble. and if a SMALL ship comes in and binds it up, Well it has trouble. Leave a cripple well enough alone and go pick on interceptors.
on a small scale warfare that is easy to balance. But how do you make balance when there are 30 Carriers at a gate and when your fleet warps there its all dead before loadign grid because the fighters did almost all the work alone withut almost any needing of human help?
Not easy to reach a balance that work on both situations.
TAKE THE COST OF THIRTY CARRIERS AND TURN THAT INTO 150 BS+ AND THE RESUALT WOULD BE EXACTLY THE SAME IN THEAT SCENARIO!
In fact 150 sniper BS would deal with that fleet 100 times faster!
|
|
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar MASS HOMICIDE Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 00:45:00 -
[961]
Originally by: XoPhyte Edited by: XoPhyte on 22/10/2007 00:40:11
Originally by: Kagura Nikon
Originally by: XoPhyte Edited by: XoPhyte on 22/10/2007 00:04:58
Originally by: Malachon Draco But how would you have felt if you were sitting in Planetside, and all of a sudden, 60 of those robots come charging over the hills, and all the enemies you meet can airdrop a couple of them on top of you at any point in time?
That is the issue.
This is not about the single carrier/MS, its about the hordes of them.
I would consider looking at my recruitment policies and looking at ways to encourage a tight knit group of highly skilled players who were passionate enough about the game and willing to invest time and energy to put themselves at the top of the PVP pyramid, and find players that were willing to risk billions of isk at any given time in any given battle.
I would not ask that the game be changed to compensate for the lack of this effort.
Blobbing at any level has proven to be bad for the game, so don't just single out 60 carriers when there are problems with 100 battleships, 200 cruisers or literally hundreds of frigates.
the issue is the game is not made for your little elite only. Its made for the 1 day old noob as much as for the 2003 player. Elitism and arrogance has no place on game design and game balance decisions.
And by your logic you should be a millionare as soon as you are born just like some other rich guy that had to work hard to get there, because you don't really want to put any effort into anything.
I was the guy in a frigate as well, and I worked my butt off to get where I am. I am sorry if you have not done the same, but I, and others, should not be published due to your own laziness.
Should we then nerf battleships because the 1 day old character can't fly that either? I have an idea, lets all fly around in ibis's!!!!
You simply don 't got the idea. The problem is not disalowwing older players to have an advantage. The problem is exaclty in your previous post , the pushin on elitism that prevents other people form getign into game and having fun. Its not a matter of EFFORT, its a matter that a lot of people simply didn 't knew the game so long ago. Because of that they should feel completely uselless? I really doubt so. This is a game and should be made to people have fun, not so that people can look down at others and say "hey I am superior to you"
A full BS fleet is far more vulnerable to a full frigate flee than a Full carrier fleet is to a full BS fleet. That is what needs blance.
If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough |
Rhanzid
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 00:48:00 -
[962]
#1 - Carriers cost 1,5bn fitted and ready (mom's 25-30bn.. more..) #2 - Skillbooks to use carrier properly is 1,5bn approx #3 - Training to carrier takes ALOT longer than battleships
Now you wanna make them less powerful than a 100 mill battleship that any pilot can fly decently in 3-4 months ? Today when you field a carrier you already put alot of isk on the line, cause carriers really aren't that hard to kill! A single ECM ship can hold a carrier down, rendering it totally useless..
I really don't see how this adds up, and the only role a carrier will have with those changes implemented is pos-hugging expensive haulers.. that's it. C'mon, why would anybody assign a carrier/mom to the front if they can't even pop a battleship alone? A battleship is basicly the only ship they can pop the way things are right now anyways, cause the smaller ones are too fast for the fighters to hit. And why would anybody train for one in the first place?
Seriously, getting a capital ship is something you look forward to, it's an achievement just because they are good ships! If you take that away from them, noone will train for one, as simple as that. Might aswell just go for a dread instead, until they're nerfed down to only mounting medium guns because they are too powerful..
Any corp that works hard enough to field a couple of carriers in it's ops should get a segnificant boost to their offense AND defense, not just some large lumps of slow-moving metal. By nerfing them like this, you will not make them better supportships.
Just give the carriers a much faster locktime on gangmates and better repping abilities, for instance much shorter cycle-time on reppers (ofcourse you'd have to downgrade repped amount so the total rep / second is still the same). That way they will atleast be useful as gangsupport, not only pos-shield repping.
Nerfing them to the point below a battleship is just silly, it really is..
This entire proposal only makes the need for titans greater, but i kinda saw that one coming somehow.. yay for the big alliances, you've just won eve.
|
DaMiGe
Amarr Infinitus Odium The Church.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 00:52:00 -
[963]
Simple thing comes to mind here, Please no.
And:
If it isnt broke, WHY fix it.
Dont force people to use a ship one way, leave the options open to deligate/not too.
-DaM ---> My vids <--- latest movie = DaMiGe Control 2 |
Dracon Vidi
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 00:52:00 -
[964]
"The problem is not disalowwing older players to have an advantage. The problem is exaclty in your previous post , the pushin on elitism that prevents other people form getign into game and having fun. Its not a matter of EFFORT, its a matter that a lot of people simply didn 't knew the game so long ago. Because of that they should feel completely uselless? I really doubt so. This is a game and should be made to people have fun, not so that people can look down at others and say "hey I am superior to you"
A full BS fleet is far more vulnerable to a full frigate flee than a Full carrier fleet is to a full BS fleet. That is what needs blance.
EEEHHHH WRONG! Firsti spent 3 yrs in the game and i know more, have worked for more and yes, AM superior to you. Go gank other noobs.
And your "fleet" example is kinda wrong.
|
Will Fireblade
Darwin With Attitude oooh Shiny
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 00:54:00 -
[965]
Originally by: Law Enforcer Edited by: Law Enforcer on 21/10/2007 11:32:53 instead of making them useless like you made titans.
Seems like we found a bob fan. Titans are not useless they just need to actually compromise them now and not open your DD from inside a pos.
|
oDDiTy V2
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 00:55:00 -
[966]
Has anyone pointed out the fact that 10 fighters are indeed more expensive than a battleship?
|
Silvion
Kodan Armada
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 00:55:00 -
[967]
Originally by: Kagura Nikon
Originally by: XoPhyte Edited by: XoPhyte on 22/10/2007 00:40:11
Originally by: Kagura Nikon
Originally by: XoPhyte Edited by: XoPhyte on 22/10/2007 00:04:58
Originally by: Malachon Draco But how would you have felt if you were sitting in Planetside, and all of a sudden, 60 of those robots come charging over the hills, and all the enemies you meet can airdrop a couple of them on top of you at any point in time?
That is the issue.
This is not about the single carrier/MS, its about the hordes of them.
I would consider looking at my recruitment policies and looking at ways to encourage a tight knit group of highly skilled players who were passionate enough about the game and willing to invest time and energy to put themselves at the top of the PVP pyramid, and find players that were willing to risk billions of isk at any given time in any given battle.
I would not ask that the game be changed to compensate for the lack of this effort.
Blobbing at any level has proven to be bad for the game, so don't just single out 60 carriers when there are problems with 100 battleships, 200 cruisers or literally hundreds of frigates.
the issue is the game is not made for your little elite only. Its made for the 1 day old noob as much as for the 2003 player. Elitism and arrogance has no place on game design and game balance decisions.
And by your logic you should be a millionare as soon as you are born just like some other rich guy that had to work hard to get there, because you don't really want to put any effort into anything.
I was the guy in a frigate as well, and I worked my butt off to get where I am. I am sorry if you have not done the same, but I, and others, should not be published due to your own laziness.
Should we then nerf battleships because the 1 day old character can't fly that either? I have an idea, lets all fly around in ibis's!!!!
You simply don 't got the idea. The problem is not disalowwing older players to have an advantage. The problem is exaclty in your previous post , the pushin on elitism that prevents other people form getign into game and having fun. Its not a matter of EFFORT, its a matter that a lot of people simply didn 't knew the game so long ago. Because of that they should feel completely uselless? I really doubt so. This is a game and should be made to people have fun, not so that people can look down at others and say "hey I am superior to you"
A full BS fleet is far more vulnerable to a full frigate flee than a Full carrier fleet is to a full BS fleet. That is what needs blance.
you are wrong...thats whats called an "even fight" if the bs's are setup properly
|
Draconis Vidi
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 00:56:00 -
[968]
Originally by: oDDiTy V2 Has anyone pointed out the fact that 10 fighters are indeed more expensive than a battleship?
More expensive than a decently fitted Battleship.
|
Gyle
Caldari Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 00:57:00 -
[969]
Originally by: Kagura Nikon
Originally by: XoPhyte Edited by: XoPhyte on 22/10/2007 00:40:11
Originally by: Kagura Nikon
Originally by: XoPhyte Edited by: XoPhyte on 22/10/2007 00:04:58
Originally by: Malachon Draco But how would you have felt if you were sitting in Planetside, and all of a sudden, 60 of those robots come charging over the hills, and all the enemies you meet can airdrop a couple of them on top of you at any point in time?
That is the issue.
This is not about the single carrier/MS, its about the hordes of them.
I would consider looking at my recruitment policies and looking at ways to encourage a tight knit group of highly skilled players who were passionate enough about the game and willing to invest time and energy to put themselves at the top of the PVP pyramid, and find players that were willing to risk billions of isk at any given time in any given battle.
I would not ask that the game be changed to compensate for the lack of this effort.
Blobbing at any level has proven to be bad for the game, so don't just single out 60 carriers when there are problems with 100 battleships, 200 cruisers or literally hundreds of frigates.
the issue is the game is not made for your little elite only. Its made for the 1 day old noob as much as for the 2003 player. Elitism and arrogance has no place on game design and game balance decisions.
And by your logic you should be a millionare as soon as you are born just like some other rich guy that had to work hard to get there, because you don't really want to put any effort into anything.
I was the guy in a frigate as well, and I worked my butt off to get where I am. I am sorry if you have not done the same, but I, and others, should not be published due to your own laziness.
Should we then nerf battleships because the 1 day old character can't fly that either? I have an idea, lets all fly around in ibis's!!!!
You simply don 't got the idea. The problem is not disalowwing older players to have an advantage. The problem is exaclty in your previous post , the pushin on elitism that prevents other people form getign into game and having fun. Its not a matter of EFFORT, its a matter that a lot of people simply didn 't knew the game so long ago. Because of that they should feel completely uselless? I really doubt so. This is a game and should be made to people have fun, not so that people can look down at others and say "hey I am superior to you"
A full BS fleet is far more vulnerable to a full frigate flee than a Full carrier fleet is to a full BS fleet. That is what needs blance.
If there is nothing to aspire to in the game then what is the point in playing? When i get a titan. i imagin the game will loose a lot of interest. the whole point is to have goals.
Look at it in real life terms. Capitalism vs comunisum. Comunism collapsed becuase no one has anything. In a free market people can work and work and aspire to things greater then their current station. To get ahead of ones pier, to be better then many others,
That is the spirit of EVE, to conqure, to be the best.
If there is nothing to aspire to then there is nothing to play for.
Its not elitism. Its human nature.
|
Dracon Vidi
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 00:58:00 -
[970]
Originally by: Silvion
Originally by: Kagura Nikon
Originally by: XoPhyte Edited by: XoPhyte on 22/10/2007 00:40:11
Originally by: Kagura Nikon
Originally by: XoPhyte Edited by: XoPhyte on 22/10/2007 00:04:58
Originally by: Malachon Draco But how would you have felt if you were sitting in Planetside, and all of a sudden, 60 of those robots come charging over the hills, and all the enemies you meet can airdrop a couple of them on top of you at any point in time?
That is the issue.
This is not about the single carrier/MS, its about the hordes of them.
I would consider looking at my recruitment policies and looking at ways to encourage a tight knit group of highly skilled players who were passionate enough about the game and willing to invest time and energy to put themselves at the top of the PVP pyramid, and find players that were willing to risk billions of isk at any given time in any given battle.
I would not ask that the game be changed to compensate for the lack of this effort.
Blobbing at any level has proven to be bad for the game, so don't just single out 60 carriers when there are problems with 100 battleships, 200 cruisers or literally hundreds of frigates.
the issue is the game is not made for your little elite only. Its made for the 1 day old noob as much as for the 2003 player. Elitism and arrogance has no place on game design and game balance decisions.
And by your logic you should be a millionare as soon as you are born just like some other rich guy that had to work hard to get there, because you don't really want to put any effort into anything.
I was the guy in a frigate as well, and I worked my butt off to get where I am. I am sorry if you have not done the same, but I, and others, should not be published due to your own laziness.
Should we then nerf battleships because the 1 day old character can't fly that either? I have an idea, lets all fly around in ibis's!!!!
You simply don 't got the idea. The problem is not disalowwing older players to have an advantage. The problem is exaclty in your previous post , the pushin on elitism that prevents other people form getign into game and having fun. Its not a matter of EFFORT, its a matter that a lot of people simply didn 't knew the game so long ago. Because of that they should feel completely uselless? I really doubt so. This is a game and should be made to people have fun, not so that people can look down at others and say "hey I am superior to you"
A full BS fleet is far more vulnerable to a full frigate flee than a Full carrier fleet is to a full BS fleet. That is what needs blance.
you are wrong...thats whats called an "even fight" if the bs's are setup properly
and if your battleship ISN'T set upproperly, get back to +.5 space til you can fly it right.
|
|
Freaken Stain
R.u.S.H. Red Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 00:58:00 -
[971]
Originally by: Klezz This "Idea" is utterly utterly CRAP Carriers and MOMS are just fine , keep your dirty nerfbat OFF Like said a thousand times already , focus on whats REALLY bother your paying customers. Desync and massive lag issues !!!
I'am quoting this gentlemen.
|
Tarnia Xavian
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 00:59:00 -
[972]
Fix triage first then you won't need to "fix" the so-called uberness of the carrier's offense.
You need to change triage so that an energy transfer is effective on a target (carrier or dreadnought) that is sieged.
Problem solved.
|
Cadela Fria
Amarr Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 00:59:00 -
[973]
Originally by: Kagura Nikon
You simply don 't got the idea. The problem is not disalowwing older players to have an advantage. The problem is exaclty in your previous post , the pushin on elitism that prevents other people form getign into game and having fun. Its not a matter of EFFORT, its a matter that a lot of people simply didn 't knew the game so long ago. Because of that they should feel completely uselless? I really doubt so. This is a game and should be made to people have fun, not so that people can look down at others and say "hey I am superior to you"
A full BS fleet is far more vulnerable to a full frigate flee than a Full carrier fleet is to a full BS fleet. That is what needs blance.
So it's because people feel useless and down over people like BoB, saying "hey I'm superior to you" ? Because elitism is something people can't cope with?
..You know I'm trying to be proper about this, and believe me I want to be, because you're being honest and concerned. I fully respect! However, I feel compelled..nay..I feel URGED to say: Awwww boohoo, call the waaaahmbulance.
I mean this not as an insult to you or anyone else good Sir/Madam, but please understand that if games were to be made into happy flowery playing fields with nice smiling people and no one behaving like..well..jerks, then..well..I'm not really sure how to finish that sentence except remarking that it should be self-explanatory!
So WHAT if they are elitist? Why do you care? They push themselves on you? Well push back!..Or, I don't know..IGNORE them???? They wage war on you? Do what everyone else does..FIGHT BACK! Or run away..whichever may be your perogative.
You think elitism wasn't imposed on many of us old players too when we started? I started in 2004, and I had people telling me they were more "uber" and "awesome" then me EVERY SINGLE DAY, and they were..good for them I guess, I never cared.
|
Armoured C
Gallente Deviance Inc DeStInY.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 01:01:00 -
[974]
this is a big nerf bat i mean big nerf doomsdaydevice against a somewhat large group of ibis's
these ships have no guns and they only way to defends itself it by these fighters, why dont we start taking off guns of other ships, mr nerf bat
yeah meg down to 4 slots domi down to 3 hyp down to 4 that sound about reasonable if you nerfing the only attack force these carriers have
this is the worst nerf i have ever seen @.@
|
Dracon Vidi
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 01:04:00 -
[975]
Before stopping to nerf carriers, anyone stop to think just HOW EASY it is to kill a carriers fighters? they pop fast with a few drones deployed by that POOR Battleship. and the fighters can't KILL that Battleships Drones.
|
Oratu
Brutor tribe
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 01:05:00 -
[976]
Edited by: Oratu on 22/10/2007 01:05:34 I think ccp are smokin too much of the good ****...
If anything... limit Motherships to 0.0 (and give them some love)
Carriers...leave them alone
Agreed..Supercaps on solo gatecamps in low sec...is just friking insane and stupid..
you keep nerfing capitals the way yous are, no one will fly them..
I think if one INVESTS so much TIME (of which u are only allocated so much in your lifetime) and EFFORT into training titans and Motherships..they deserve to be NEAR invincable..but instead now..people invest years of the game time to fly nerfed to hell ships
I aborted capital training a long time ago..no point in dedicating years of trining into flying a glorified Brick with a glorified smartbomb..
next idea please
|
bldyannoyed
Un4seen Development
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 01:09:00 -
[977]
It's a ******* disgrace.
Oh noes, the people that pay their money to us each month are using too many carriers, and not the way we wanted them to be used NERF!!!!!!
It's MY ship. I trained the skills for it and i'll use it any way i damn well please.
|
Lucifer66
Gallente DEATHFUNK Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 01:09:00 -
[978]
Don't nerf carriers...Nerf devs instead!
|
Will Fireblade
Darwin With Attitude oooh Shiny
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 01:10:00 -
[979]
Originally by: oDDiTy V2 Has anyone pointed out the fact that 10 fighters are indeed more expensive than a battleship?
good point!
|
Lilani Kuzma
Gallente Brass Monkeys Society deadspace society
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 01:19:00 -
[980]
why thats just dumd u should not do some one take the time and isk to train to a carrier u should be able to have the drones if the changes happens i'll just blow my carrier up cuase there would be point to it any more or give us back the drone domi
|
|
Bagoon
Gallente Unified Refining Federation
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 01:19:00 -
[981]
This is a very early April fool's joke right? If this is done all carriers are going to have cargo rigs, and cargo expander IIs in the lows, O but wait jump freighters soon, so they will be completely worthless! If you want a capital ship thats actually supposed to support fleets then make one, don't just nerf one so it's forced to do the job badly. Doing this means all carriers will never leave the side of a POS bubble and never been seen again on the battlefield. Meaning they will never use their remote repping abilities as they can't defend themselves in a fight. Who the hell would invest in a mothership, most wasted 32bil you could invest.
|
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 01:19:00 -
[982]
Edited by: XoPhyte on 22/10/2007 01:21:27
Originally by: Kagura Nikon
A full BS fleet is far more vulnerable to a full frigate flee than a Full carrier fleet is to a full BS fleet. That is what needs blance.
Ummm, no. If I see a full bs fleet coming after my carrier Im screwed. If the above is truly your understanding of PVP in eve today, then you have a long way to go. Look at the killboards sometime, like this link which just occured.
http://killboard.net/details/201159/
Looks like a carrier was ganked by *gasp* non capital ships. Only 12 ships of different classes (Battleships, HACS, command ships) took down a multy billion dollar capital ship with ease.
I would suggest you do a bit more research from now on about the ability of carriers to pwn fleets by themselves.
|
Icome4u
Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 01:22:00 -
[983]
So we have a good 1100 posts saying NO. And a couple repetitive posts from a couple noobs saying yes.
So hmm it's something like 900 people say NO and 15 people say yes. Only difference now is the number of people that will say NO.
So CCP, your idea was very bad, so please don't implement it. I can guarantee you will only accomplish one thing: People will stop paying you.
This sig demonstrate the problem is not drones or fighters but the amount of people show up to blobs and fleets. |
Lara Roxx
Gallente Valkyries of Valhalla
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 01:25:00 -
[984]
about a year ago i was pirating with people in a low sec constalation who the mission runners could fly carriers, we couldn't kill the carrier as it was always station hugging but we always killed a lot of its fighters if it tried to use it, when we couldn't fly any capital ship just some t2 ships and battle ships.
now i have a carrier i use mine in the roles its intended imo. i use it primarly to keep other people alive, but if this change does through why would i want to fly a carrier over a logistics?
also assigning fighters don't include your skills. here is some stats a ogre II does 62 dps a assigned fighter does 60 but cant hit anything smaller that a battle cruiser and cost 30x more.
if this change is to stop mother ships being solo pwnmobiles then make the drone control thing limit to 10 so you don't end up making carriers POS hugging ships that all they do is repair POS's and assign fighters.
____________________________ |________Sig in a Box_________| |
Akov Stohs
THE INQUISITI0N
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 01:27:00 -
[985]
You know, you should just make titan and mothership a selectable starter class. Though current mothership pilots will be able to turn blue and phase out into a ghost. Custom titles for current super capital pilots also, maybe Elder Mom Pilot.... my sig is too big |
Lazuran
Gallente Time And ISK Sink Corporation
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 01:28:00 -
[986]
Originally by: Kagura Nikon
Originally by: Draconis Vidi You know what? A carrier SHOULD be able to nuke a battleship. and fighters aren't the end all and be all, matter of fact, they really suck at tryong to kill anything SMALLER than a Battleship. and well, if you get TWO battleships or more on a carrier well,it has trouble. and if a SMALL ship comes in and binds it up, Well it has trouble. Leave a cripple well enough alone and go pick on interceptors.
on a small scale warfare that is easy to balance. But how do you make balance when there are 30 Carriers at a gate and when your fleet warps there its all dead before loadign grid because the fighters did almost all the work alone withut almost any needing of human help?
Not easy to reach a balance that work on both situations.
Basing your arguments about gameplay changes on lag is stupid.
Lag must be fixed. Then there is no need to screw up the gameplay even more and your arguments magically go away.
isn't it funny how some people advocate both GTC<=>ISK trades and EVE being superior due to its cruelty and costly losses, when they use the former to circumvent the latter?
|
Dracon Vidi
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 01:28:00 -
[987]
Originally by: Icome4u So we have a good 1100 posts saying NO. And a couple repetitive posts from a couple noobs saying yes.
So hmm it's something like 900 people say NO and 15 people say yes. Only difference now is the number of people that will say NO.
So CCP, your idea was very bad, so please don't implement it. I can guarantee you will only accomplish one thing: People will stop paying you.
Yep, seems to me like the noisy minority are pushing once again for something that is only going to annoy the majority. It is not broken, just the brains of the noisey minority are broken, Leave well enough alone.
|
Tassill
Minmatar GREY COUNCIL Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 01:29:00 -
[988]
This is such a bad idea, all this will do is = no more carriers and moms on the front lines.
|
Druadan
Gallente Aristotle Enterprises Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 01:31:00 -
[989]
Edited by: Druadan on 22/10/2007 01:34:06 39 pages of objections to this ridiculous idea, and what have we got? A ''we'll consider your concerns''. I must admit, that's more than we got in the dozens of pages over TWO THREADS when capital pilots from across New Eden railed against your stupid carrier ship maintenance bay nerf. That one went on for that long and we didn't get a ******* thing, you just went a head and implemented the change anyway, so you'll forgive me if I don't quite accept your dev posts as anything but yellow-banded Posts of Numbing Inevitability.
A ''sorry'' would be nice. An apology for torturing our Sunday with the threat of this idea. But you can't even give us that, let alone what's needed: a retraction of this hideously misinformed devblog, and the movement of this QA fellow back to the department that sorely needs him, because it is clear that game design is not his forte. You can tell us not to shoot the messenger, but Wrangler's already told us that this change comes from the area of ''balancing'' that he has been given charge of, so don't even try it on.
That this idea even got to devblog stage is what really concerns me. It concerns me to the extent that even if I do re-enable my subscription (I removed it when I read the devblog, and shall not be reinstating it if the change goes forward), what will be next? Should I even bother putting money into a game the developers of which come up with the dumbest free-range lunatic changes imaginable? What about that Rorqual? That was a farce and a half, that whole thread. Capital mining ship, YAY! But it can't mine, it will just support the mining op. Oh well, that's cool. But it can't use fighters to defend itself and is expected to anchor itself into a belt to capital tractor beam cans in and compress the loot. When it was pointed out by the playerbase that people would just stick it at a POS, you didn't even back down then - what we got was an arrogant ''well we'll just change leadership so gang bonuses only work on-grid''. You might as well have added a ''So nerr.'' to most of the dev posts in that thread.
In the words of Malachai, servant of the great Metal Lord, 'smite someone who deserves it for a change!' - We still have the issue of invincible nanogangs because your webs don't actually web ships and nanoing modules stack too well.
- We still have a drone interface that takes up overview space and is clunky and bugged.
- We still have drone AI that is pure lunacy.
- We still have drone regions with no faction/officer-level rewards.
- We still have levels of lag that are unacceptable.
All these things to fix and you're moving to game design a QA guy who doesn't have the first clue what he's playing with, and you're letting him swing the nerfbat wildly at capital ships.
Please, give me a reason to keep playing this game that has been so great but is declining so quickly.
### I nearly finish carriers, and they nerf it. I nearly finish Amarr recons, and they make them useless. Vagabond pilots beware... I have bought Minmatar Cruiser. |
J Valkor
Blackguard Brigade
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 01:33:00 -
[990]
Sigh. And I bet some of you complain about the Devs not being transparent enough in another thread.
PLEASE IGNORE THESE *******S AND POST DEV BLOGS ABOUT IDEAS YOU ARE PLAYING WITH! I understand that with your new promotion you want to do changes for the good of the game and would like player input about your ideas. Disregard the total lack of manners but accept some of the valid criticisms. Please do not become less willing to post ideas you are playing with in the future. I love the **** out of dev blogs.
|
|
Nomispanco
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 01:39:00 -
[991]
Bhoouu !!! Most Stupid idea of the years /me wasted time to train Carrier // Fighter
-- Nomispanco --
|
Blackmyst
Caldari Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 01:42:00 -
[992]
Ups another one , as Nomi said , this on is the best ...
And after this nerf ? DD reduce to 5km
One Turrel on a dread , 1 Turrel on a Bs for reduce the lag :lawl: !
-- BlackMyst --
|
White Aero
Arcana Imperii Ltd. Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 01:44:00 -
[993]
Edited by: White Aero on 22/10/2007 01:45:09 I HAVE FIGURED THIS WHOLE THING OUT......
THE NEW T2 GALLENTE FREIGHTER
*Thanks Endo for the image*
|
Gyle
Caldari Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 01:45:00 -
[994]
Originally by: White Aero I HAVE FIGURED this WHOLE THING OUT......
THE NEW T2 GALLENTE FREIGHTER
ROFLOMGZA! BAZING!
take that ccp
|
ShiVAs PArAdOXx
Minmatar InterGalactic Corp. Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 01:49:00 -
[995]
I have better idea of nerfing...
1. Remove carriers, motherships, titans, dreads (well, dreads can stay as they have perfectly defined role) from game. 2. Reimburse all BPOs, and ships isk wise.
Woot, we dont have imbanlance problem \o/
As of DEVs gaiming experience i could say only one thing... please play on tranquility, not ur own dev server where there is 100 people total (counting alts too), and u have experience playing 20 vs 20 FLEET battles :)
There is ****loads of micromanagement with drones already.
/me stoping carrier lvl5 training right now...
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein |
LaraCrotte
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 01:49:00 -
[996]
Edited by: LaraCrotte on 22/10/2007 01:54:50 Edited by: LaraCrotte on 22/10/2007 01:52:47
au buchT ... !!!
|
Cadela Fria
Amarr Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 02:00:00 -
[997]
The problem though, is that Devs ARE playing their own game, and that's whats frightening. Also..all the people who tell CCP to play their own game, please go slap anyone you know that complains about people having devs in their alliance/corp.
|
InnerDrive
Shiva Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 02:01:00 -
[998]
Man like how badly ya wanna nerf motherships till ur satisfied with the result?
First they became extremely easy to catch (and even easier to catch once there are cruiser sized dictor)
And now u wanna limit their firepower to 5 fighters??
Try flying one the things urself and get caught somewhere by a hostile gang not abble to fit much of use on ur high slots and with 5 fighters as ur only firepower???
Carriers and motherships are fine as is , the only thing u guys care about is trying to reduce server lag imo
|
ScheenK
Gallente StatiC Elite Brethren of The Sky
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 02:04:00 -
[999]
This has to be the dumbest thing i have ever heard, Carriers and Moms are capital ships
there meant be big and powerful and bring out loads of dps, doing this is making a carrier
like the dumbest ship to be in. CCP you do this and you will regret it everyday, maybe
take this new employee and tell him to stop ******* up your game that you have made great
until now, please dont follow through with this, this has to be the dumbest thing, i cant
believe they even considered this, and take into consideration that all the major
alliances are even saying this is the dumbest thing and they fly these ships everyday,
im pretty sure they would know.
Zulupark please dont screw this game up.
|
Sinner aint'no'Saint
Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 02:06:00 -
[1000]
Originally by: White Aero Edited by: White Aero on 22/10/2007 01:45:09 I HAVE FIGURED THIS WHOLE THING OUT......
THE NEW T2 GALLENTE FREIGHTER
*Thanks Endo for the image*
hahhahahaha now it all makes sense!!!!
|
|
Icome4u
Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 02:07:00 -
[1001]
Originally by: Cadela Fria The problem though, is that Devs ARE playing their own game, and that's whats frightening. Also..all the people who tell CCP to play their own game, please go slap anyone you know that complains about people having devs in their alliance/corp.
Well SOME Dev's play EVE. The one with this idea clearly doesn't. It's not the first time ether we get a stupid 'idea' from a Dev. Scary thing is even tho 99% of the people say no to the idea they still do it. They DON'T care about us... :(
You guys better watch it at Fanfest, if this idea goes through i'll f*cking slap the **** out of every single one of you DEV guys.
This sig demonstrate the problem is not drones or fighters but the amount of people show up to blobs and fleets. |
Icome4u
Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 02:11:00 -
[1002]
Edited by: Icome4u on 22/10/2007 02:13:54
Originally by: Strategos
Originally by: Icome4u
Originally by: Das Lol
Originally by: R1pp3r Someone in this thread has already mentioned it but I like the idea of fighters having a hard time tracking battleships. This would still allow for the tactical repair advantage...
You forgot the part where nobody smart uses carriers for that.
Considering any good pilot in a BS (if you suck at it don't freaking fly it) can tank fighters. Maybe not a MS full of fighters but hey... just GTFO. If you are tackled hey guess what! You deserve to die.
The carrier pilot is very unskilled SP wise if a battleship is tanking a full set of his fighters, but keep talking out of your ass, it doesn't make you look stupid at all. Only way a BS could tank a full set of carrier fighters is if the carrier only uses 1 damage type fighter and the BS it fully tanked vs that one type of damage.
Didn't see your noobiness :)
Considering where Genco stands on the skill tree i shouldn't bother replying but heh. Fighters are not uberness wtfpwn drones, sorry to burst your bubble. Sur if you got a NYX or a Thanatos at level 5 you will be doing some damage, but with my Chimera at level 5, fighters at level 4 and a Dominix thats t2 fitted is tanking me for a very very long time, it clearly shows BS (heck a tier 1 BS) can tank a carrier. HECK! My drake can tank 2 thanatos (at level 3, so thats ~15 fighters +dmg bonus) and its only t2 fitted with 1 t2 rig and 2 t1 rigs! So again, only idiots and noobs die to carriers. Clearly you are one of them.
Oh and the reason carriers and MS fly around with support: Because they aren't that great solo! Oh and you can simply stick 2-3 damps on a carrier and he becaumes useless. For a MS? Heh smartbomb his fighters and drones!
Can anyone tell me what happen to the solo MS low sec gate campers? Yupp they died!
This sig demonstrate the problem is not drones or fighters but the amount of people show up to blobs and fleets. |
Clavius XIV
Auctoritan Syndicate Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 02:12:00 -
[1003]
Originally by: Icome4u So we have a good 1100 posts saying NO. And a couple repetitive posts from a couple noobs saying yes.
So hmm it's something like 900 people say NO and 15 people say yes. Only difference now is the number of people that will say NO.
Yeah, let's decide balance changes by popular vote and who can yell the loudest on the forums.
The #1 complaint people have with the change is it impacts people who have already invested considerable gametime and isk into training someting that now will be nerfed (well actualy dps will be the same but it will require more pilots to weild it effectively).
Ultimatly we will have to see if CCP is more interested in appeasing the masses and keeping subs and leading us to Capitals Online or if they are actualy interested in a balanced game with mixed fleets.
They will probably cave though, CCP has gotten to big and too corporate to put game balance in front of the bottom line... as much as I'd love to be proven wrong.
|
Yorda
Kudzu Collective Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 02:15:00 -
[1004]
Originally by: Max Torps
Zulupark - Hi guys, first day, what do you want me to do? Dev - Don't worry son, we won't send you out for tartan paint, there's an idea we've been tossing around that we think is cool. Announce it in your first blog. Zulupark - OK, cool! This will really make me popular with the community because it's about big ships and stuff! Thanks guys! Dev - Yeah go for it...no problem (chuckle)
lol
A small part of me wants this to be true. Then again that just makes him the messenger and then we're really in trouble!
I am still a goon so this signature stays |
Icome4u
Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 02:19:00 -
[1005]
Originally by: Clavius XIV
Originally by: Icome4u So we have a good 1100 posts saying NO. And a couple repetitive posts from a couple noobs saying yes.
So hmm it's something like 900 people say NO and 15 people say yes. Only difference now is the number of people that will say NO.
Yeah, let's decide balance changes by popular vote and who can yell the loudest on the forums.
The #1 complaint people have with the change is it impacts people who have already invested considerable gametime and isk into training someting that now will be nerfed (well actualy dps will be the same but it will require more pilots to weild it effectively).
Ultimatly we will have to see if CCP is more interested in appeasing the masses and keeping subs and leading us to Capitals Online or if they are actualy interested in a balanced game with mixed fleets.
They will probably cave though, CCP has gotten to big and too corporate to put game balance in front of the bottom line... as much as I'd love to be proven wrong.
Well considering the masses say NO to this idea its pretty clear that carriers DON'T need this nerf. So far masses keep whining about X thing and CCP listens, we hopefully they listen to us and they DON'T nerf carriers and MS.
Iv flown with CVA a couple times, even helped keep your space yours, im impress a stupid post like this comes from a CVA member. Maybe you should get in contact with your carrier pilots and have a talk with them. I'm sure they will enlighten you on the stupidity of CCP's idea.
This sig demonstrate the problem is not drones or fighters but the amount of people show up to blobs and fleets. |
Gyle
Caldari Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 02:21:00 -
[1006]
Originally by: Clavius XIV
Originally by: Icome4u So we have a good 1100 posts saying NO. And a couple repetitive posts from a couple noobs saying yes.
So hmm it's something like 900 people say NO and 15 people say yes. Only difference now is the number of people that will say NO.
Yeah, let's decide balance changes by popular vote and who can yell the loudest on the forums.
No dude youve missed the point. Everyone is whining becuase they arent unbalanced in the first place.
|
Cadela Fria
Amarr Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 02:21:00 -
[1007]
Originally by: Yorda
Originally by: Max Torps
Zulupark - Hi guys, first day, what do you want me to do? Dev - Don't worry son, we won't send you out for tartan paint, there's an idea we've been tossing around that we think is cool. Announce it in your first blog. Zulupark - OK, cool! This will really make me popular with the community because it's about big ships and stuff! Thanks guys! Dev - Yeah go for it...no problem (chuckle)
lol
A small part of me wants this to be true. Then again that just makes him the messenger and then we're really in trouble!
*coughs*
Originally by: CCP Abathur Ladies and Gentlemen, please rest assured that the Dev team is paying attention to this thread. Don't take it all out on Zulu; he was just the messenger. As was stated in the original blog this is an idea and we thank you all for your constructive input. Please feel free to continue voicing what your concerns are and we will do our best to address them.
|
Bon Hedus
Amarr O.E.C Legionnaire Services Ltd.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 02:22:00 -
[1008]
40 pages of "stuff", a handful of pro-nerf pilots that really don't seem to understand the issues presented. Mr. Zulupark, I am embarrassed for you that you had to make your debut dev post in such a way. I can only hope you were drunk out of your skull when you posted this "idea."
As a carrier pilot, I will have to cast a resounding "no" to the ideas behind this nerf, for all the previous reasons.
Please let this idea lay dead and throw a little dirt on it, it stinks.
-------------------------------------- Heavy Lag Spike II belonging to EvE Cluster Node #0815 hits your Connection, wrecking your latency to 998ms |
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 02:24:00 -
[1009]
Originally by: Clavius XIV
Originally by: Icome4u So we have a good 1100 posts saying NO. And a couple repetitive posts from a couple noobs saying yes.
So hmm it's something like 900 people say NO and 15 people say yes. Only difference now is the number of people that will say NO.
Yeah, let's decide balance changes by popular vote and who can yell the loudest on the forums.
The #1 complaint people have with the change is it impacts people who have already invested considerable gametime and isk into training someting that now will be nerfed (well actualy dps will be the same but it will require more pilots to weild it effectively).
Ultimatly we will have to see if CCP is more interested in appeasing the masses and keeping subs and leading us to Capitals Online or if they are actualy interested in a balanced game with mixed fleets.
They will probably cave though, CCP has gotten to big and too corporate to put game balance in front of the bottom line... as much as I'd love to be proven wrong.
Umm yeah, listening to the majority of your customer base is a bad thing .
Lets go back to my original idea of only having ibis's to fly around in, make us all equal in SP (the 900k you get when you start the game), and then everything will be "balanced" so the newer players will be every bit as powerful as the older players.
Of course with this mentality the oldest players would be about 5 days old, because flying the same old ibis around for more then a couple of days would be pretty boring.
|
Akov Stohs
THE INQUISITI0N
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 02:25:00 -
[1010]
My don't you (the devs) develop new ships and features as if you where responding to current threats inside the game. Ships and races Evolve to respond to threats. Give ships new bigger abilities to counter the things that are wrong in the game. my sig is too big |
|
Draconis Vidi
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 02:28:00 -
[1011]
Originally by: Clavius XIV
Originally by: Icome4u So we have a good 1100 posts saying NO. And a couple repetitive posts from a couple noobs saying yes.
So hmm it's something like 900 people say NO and 15 people say yes. Only difference now is the number of people that will say NO.
Yeah, let's decide balance changes by popular vote and who can yell the loudest on the forums.
The #1 complaint people have with the change is it impacts people who have already invested considerable gametime and isk into training someting that now will be nerfed (well actualy dps will be the same but it will require more pilots to weild it effectively).
Ultimatly we will have to see if CCP is more interested in appeasing the masses and keeping subs and leading us to Capitals Online or if they are actualy interested in a balanced game with mixed fleets.
They will probably cave though, CCP has gotten to big and too corporate to put game balance in front of the bottom line... as much as I'd love to be proven wrong.
HUH??
Carriers are lame enough ducks, any ship out there can tank 5 fighters, most 10 or more unles you are not able to fit your ship properly and that is a whole other issue. Already carriers can't killmuch smaller than a battleship. hell a small fleet of HAC's and a jammer or two can eat a carrier. Fighters cost too much and die to easy..... leave the poor cripple alone.
|
ZenTex
Interstellar eXodus R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 02:36:00 -
[1012]
Carriers are solopwnmobiles?
well, the skills cost a fortune, the ship costs a fortune and the fighters cost a fortune. Ofcourse it should be a "better-than-battleships-at-killing-stuff ships".
Besides, even a small gang can easily kill a solo carrier. they're not solopwnmobiles at all. A lone carrier is a big fat juicy target and slow to boot.
I'm not a carrier pilot, nor di I intend to be one. I got my BS incinerated by 2 carriers before though, but not in the .2 seconds mentioned, and hell, why not? They're 10 times as large as I am, 10 times as costly and require a truckload of SP's.
Carriers are balanced the way they are. Alone they die easily and it's no small loss.
There's little a sledgehammer can't fix. If you can't fix it, you need a bigger sledgehammer. If it's unfixable, blame CCP. :p
|
Kropotkin
Gallente Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 02:38:00 -
[1013]
If you want to understand how fighters and their carriers *should* work, you have to read Fleet Tactics by Wayne P. Hughes, Jr.
Especially Chapter 4.
|
Ganique
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 02:41:00 -
[1014]
Terrible Idea,
Leave carriers alone they are fine they way they are. This idea would make Motherships useless. If this happens I doubt I will get the Thanatos that I am oh so close to getting.
|
Keithos
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 02:42:00 -
[1015]
I want to get something straight, this is a bad idea. CCP is just making things worse with lag and all the headache from assigning fighter as others have already said so I won't repeat them.
I will say this though, I think that motherships need to be looked at. I think that motherships need to be more then just 'super carriers'; someone early suggested giving motherships huge drone bays but making thier max control dependent on the fleet or something else. I think motherships need something like that (I am not sure how balanced such an idea but it's a start).
I also think that supercaps in low sec need to be looked at. I don't know exactly what should be done but it's almost impossible when supercap make an appearance in low sec to stop them. The biggest (and only) counter to super caps doesn't work in low sec. However if this is an attempt to do this it fails massively.
|
Regaul Kinath
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 02:43:00 -
[1016]
Edited by: Regaul Kinath on 22/10/2007 02:45:20 Edited by: Regaul Kinath on 22/10/2007 02:44:45
----
Well there goes my 2 year training....
WORST IDEA EVER!!!!!
----
|
poiss'caille
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 02:44:00 -
[1017]
plz CCP, dont nerf capital ship...
let them there firepower...
or maybe ...
ok 5 drone only, but add a bonus of +20% damage per level... for preserving firepower of capital ship, but with only 5 drones.
but nerf like that is not cool...
think about capital ship pilotes...!
|
Voltron
Caldari The Collective Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 02:46:00 -
[1018]
Can i have my 450 mill for gallente carrier back? I'll give up the time I've spent training it.
Unless this change is going to be balanced out by something? Or is the "mega logistics ships" statement all I need to read into?
Volt It's great touching your own dink isn't it?
Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed dimensions of 400x120 pixels -Valorem ([email protected])
|
Bruno Bonner
Gallente Lutin Group
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 02:49:00 -
[1019]
well i'm not a carrier pilot, but i agree with what most MC pilots say, they are a projection of power IN the battlefield not outside of it. And fighters are their weapon.
How about:
-Only 1 drone control unit module allowed to be active/fitted (bringing the maxed quantity of drone/fighters deployed to 6), reducing lag.
-Carrier skill gives out a good boost to fighter HP/Speed/Damage.
The above would make valuable to assign a SINGLE fighter to a pilot as it would still deal a good chunk of damage without having a massive cloud of fighters deployed around.
Regular drones will not get any bonuses from the carrier skill or ship, they would only be affected by the pilot skills in that area.
With the above the carrier pilot can choose to command all 6 deployed fighters himself or in a move to counter being dampened, assign the 6 fighters to 6 different pilots and deal damage.
Assigned fighters should still count as controlled drone units btw.
a naive non-carrier pilot suggestion Bruno ------ aka BinderAJ |
Lucifer66
Gallente DEATHFUNK Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 02:50:00 -
[1020]
Ok so you want to reduce lag and make everyone equal on the battlefield?...how about we just get rid of all ships except shuttles?...now everyone is equal...no guns, missiles, drones, EW, ECM, and you reduce your lag completely. Especially when your player base drops to 0. If this is where we are heading I'll get off here and save my money and time wasted training all these darn skills.
How about buying more servers?...that never seems to come up. The player base has increased from 1700 players at most to 35,000+ just since I started playing 2 years ago but CCP hasn't been interested in keeping up. They said they bought a new server once but all I have seen is more lag and much less reliability.
How about hiring some devs that aren't out to ruin the game with pink ships and nerfs every week? Are they trying to be politically correct? Are they members of the rainbow coalition? Maybe some random testing is needed for CCP employees cuz this sounds like it came from some kinda hallucination. I mean really, who wants to fly a pink combat ship? Or worse yet, who wants to have to admit they were killed by one? I can see the "Killed by BRUCE alliance with a Pink ship" killmails allready.
Look, this is a video game. You got ships with guns so yeah ppl are gonna shoot eachother and they are gonna be looking for the best ship to get the job done. EVE is based on the premise of an interstelar war with groups of players looking to gain control of thier own terf. So any ship you can come up with will ultimatley be used in a way you did not intend or never thought about when you created it. Nerfing any ship should never be an option, for it is the creativity of the players to use what's at hand in new and creative ways that makes the game fun and intersesting. People who complain that they can't beat another player in a better ship only need to train and work towards getting that ship or better still find ways to beat them with what they got.
Carriers are not unbeatable. If they were then none would have ever been blown up. Even titans can and have been beaten and not by other titans. I don't understand where the mentallity that if you have only played eve for a week you should be able to kill everything in the game comes from, but it is ubsurd and should be treated as such.
Someone said there are carriers solo ganking ppl on gates. Well I can tell you that alot of people would love to find these pilots cuz that's an easy payday for a small experienced fleet. I fly a carrier and I would never sit on a gate alone...that's just asking for trouble. I think alot of the people complaining can't fly a carrier and don't understand that they do have some serious weaknesses that can be easily exploited. If they spent the time to train for one instead of crying about them they would quickly find that they are not at all a pwnmobile but rather a big pile of isk waiting to go pop if they are not careful.
|
|
Colonel O'Neill
Caldari e X i l e Atrum Tempestas Foedus
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 02:50:00 -
[1021]
It's rather difficult to express anymore outrage than what has already been said. So ditto for the last 40 pages. // Colonel O'Neill |
Razaiel V
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 02:52:00 -
[1022]
Btw does this means the next nerf according to this balance that T2guns will do smae dmg as T1gunz as well just so things are in teh balance?
|
Moraguth
Amarr Shiva Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 02:55:00 -
[1023]
1200 posts later, we can see that this isn't even close to being a debate. There's no discussion on how to make this idea better. There's no need. You can't improve a crappy idea like this by "tweaking the details", you just have to let it die as a crappy idea.
THANK YOU for showing it to us in these early stages so we can nip it in the bud before you've put any kind of work into it. You haven't put any work into it yet, have you?
If this goes through, i'll have to change a semi-epic response to
"we didn't want those carriers anyway"
good game |
Spartikaz
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 02:57:00 -
[1024]
My opinion is the same as the people on these posts, i vote to kill/ban/linch/execute/torture this dev.
|
Warlore
Amarr StatiC Elite
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 03:03:00 -
[1025]
Zulupark. Capital ships take about a year to be able to fly, battleships take all of 4-5 weeks to train up. When a capital ship targets a battleship the battleship should die, plain and simple and this is coming from a battleship pilot.
I mean honestly where are the tactics or the challenge in taking down a carrier when the bloody thing can only control 5 fighters/drones?!
I'll tell you something right now. I stuck with eve-online because of the challenge this game presents. Without that challenge the game will become boring and you CCP will loose a lot of subs because people will simply loose intrest. Capital ships and super capital ships were meant to be powerful and be able to "incinerate" as Zulupark put it a battleship in all of "0.2" seconds.
The point I'm trying to make Zulupark is, if it ain't broke don't fix it and I'll tell you right now carriers and mother ships are NOT broken.
|
Coolgamer
Minmatar Res Publica R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 03:04:00 -
[1026]
Originally by: Spartikaz My opinion is the same as the people on these posts, i vote to kill/ban/linch/execute/torture this dev.
i would just say "i vote to kill/ban/linch/execute/torture this idea" remember he is just the messenger
|
Hugh Ruka
Caldari Free Traders Free Trade Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 03:04:00 -
[1027]
I see my decision to not use bigger than t1 bs hulls pays. Saved me some angry reactions.
Originally by: Aravel Thon
Originally by: Nith Batoxxx Hi my alt just leanred to fly the ferox...............
I am so so terribly sorry...
|
SATAN
BURN EDEN
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 03:06:00 -
[1028]
So let me get this straight.
Person A that spends 50billion or so on a ship, can only be effective if he has 3 or 4 noobs in frigates to do the fighting for him?
Lets also make sure that person A cant even ***** any heavily tanked ship because he can only use 5 of his drones.
Maybe you should just remove anything bigger than a frig from this game, because it seems the only thing not being nerfed every patch is frig sized ships or nanofags.
PS. While you are at it, remove the Mothership/Titan imune to EW thing, they are just too powerfull. Its just not right that a 10 man frig gang cant kill em.
|
TheSystem
Caldari The Blackstone Group Brutally Clever Empire
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 03:07:00 -
[1029]
Originally by: Bruno Bonner well i'm not a carrier pilot, but i agree with what most MC pilots say, they are a projection of power IN the battlefield not outside of it. And fighters are their weapon.
How about:
-Only 1 drone control unit module allowed to be active/fitted (bringing the maxed quantity of drone/fighters deployed to 6), reducing lag.
-Carrier skill gives out a good boost to fighter HP/Speed/Damage.
The above would make valuable to assign a SINGLE fighter to a pilot as it would still deal a good chunk of damage without having a massive cloud of fighters deployed around.
Regular drones will not get any bonuses from the carrier skill or ship, they would only be affected by the pilot skills in that area.
With the above the carrier pilot can choose to command all 6 deployed fighters himself or in a move to counter being dampened, assign the 6 fighters to 6 different pilots and deal damage.
Assigned fighters should still count as controlled drone units btw.
a naive non-carrier pilot suggestion Bruno
I agree
|
Turin
Caldari Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 03:08:00 -
[1030]
Originally by: Captain Plumbo About capitals being overpowered in lowsec: just make it impossible to cyno out within a certain distance to a warpgate, like 50km. The warpgate jumpfield interferes with the cyno jump field or something... I think this will make it a lot less attractive to gatecamp with a smartbomb gank mom.
I actually really like this idea. Though I wold make it maybe even further. 100km or something.
_________________________________
|
|
Spartikaz
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 03:10:00 -
[1031]
Originally by: Coolgamer
Originally by: Spartikaz My opinion is the same as the people on these posts, i vote to kill/ban/linch/execute/torture this dev.
i would just say "i vote to kill/ban/linch/execute/torture this idea" remember he is just the messenger
Linch the entire DEV team then they are pushing it, they are out of control!! They are going to nerf every single thing in this damn game!!!
LINCH!!! Elect a new DEV team!
|
Captain Schmungles
Caldari Freelancing Corp Confederation of Independent Corporations
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 03:12:00 -
[1032]
This is about the dumbest idea I've ever read.
1. I thought one reason why only cap ships could field fighters is that you need a large, very expensive, highly advanced ship in order to control super-advanced fighters. It makes no sense from an immersion perspective that a highly skilled pilot flying an ibis could somehow control fighters-- at the end of the day, he's still flying an ibis, and I'd like to hope that a carrier is a little more than just a giant flying hangar.
2. What would be the point of flying a mothership? None.
3. If a mothership is, in theory, a bigger and meaner carrier then why should it have the same limitations that a carrier does?
4. If a ship can control super-advanced fighters, it follows that it should easily be able to control comparatively simple drones. Furthermore, it follows that, because the drones are so simplistic when compared to a fighter, a carrier or mom should be able to control large numbers of them.
5. How would you keep fleet combat from degenerating into a constant struggle to delegate your fighters to someone who's still alive (any smart fleet would automatically primary weak ships that have been delegated fighters)?
Look, you can't nerf fighters, at least not in this way. I would favor a change where there is a cap on the number of fighters a carrier can deploy, but a mothership can deploy as many fighters as you can fit in the bay. This delegating idea though...ugh.
|
James CX
Dark Destiny Inc. TALIONIS ALLIANCE
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 03:14:00 -
[1033]
Ok ill agree with this with one condiction, the 5 drones that come outside the carrier are 5 brutixes with the damage of t2 fitted!!
|
Spartikaz
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 03:15:00 -
[1034]
I agree too but has got to be 5 EOS¦s.
|
Ternes
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 03:17:00 -
[1035]
To give carriers more of a supporting role I think the IDEA of shifting fighters to gang support only is good. However relying on fighter assignment to do it is not so good. It takes too much time away from the carrier pilot which could be better spent repping friends.
Perhaps a non-capital high slot module that draws ganged carrier fighters to a target, removing the ability for the carrier pilot to direct his damage and shifting it to the gang in a more open way.
Of course this leaves carriers stranded if they get jumped unexpectedly, so perhaps drones should still be as normal, giving them some hope of defence. Making drones a direct damage weapon and fighters a gang only weapon.
Just an idea.
|
exxorr
Amarr Royal Amarr Institute
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 03:20:00 -
[1036]
Hey CCP,
Fire the r.e.t.a.r.d. that thought this up.
You have ****ed this game up already with all your supercap nerfs, You are so ****ing stupid,
I own 3 accounts with 6 characters all with more then 35 million SP.
I will ****ing quit if you **** this game up any more.
Your the stupidest group of idiots I have ever seen,.
Feel free to ****ing ban this character from posting eve forums.
Get into the game you idiots, try playing it in a fleet battle and see if you can launch any fighters.
Get a frigging grip.
Stop ****ing up what is not broken and fix the content that is.
Stop pandering to noobs, and show us older dedicated players some frigging respect.
Next time hire a kindergarden kid, he would be much more competent
|
SigmaPi
Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 03:20:00 -
[1037]
This very well may be the worst "balance" you all have ever come up with. Just fix the lag associated with drones so that the battleships have a chance to react instead of nerfbating a ship that takes an entire eve life time to gain.
SigmaPi Cutting Edge Incorporated Executive Commander RAZOR Alliance
|
Icome4u
Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 03:21:00 -
[1038]
Edited by: Icome4u on 22/10/2007 03:21:59 Edited by: Icome4u on 22/10/2007 03:21:27
Originally by: TheSystem
Originally by: Bruno Bonner well i'm not a carrier pilot, but i agree with what most MC pilots say, they are a projection of power IN the battlefield not outside of it. And fighters are their weapon.
How about:
-Only 1 drone control unit module allowed to be active/fitted (bringing the maxed quantity of drone/fighters deployed to 6), reducing lag.
-Carrier skill gives out a good boost to fighter HP/Speed/Damage.
The above would make valuable to assign a SINGLE fighter to a pilot as it would still deal a good chunk of damage without having a massive cloud of fighters deployed around.
Regular drones will not get any bonuses from the carrier skill or ship, they would only be affected by the pilot skills in that area.
With the above the carrier pilot can choose to command all 6 deployed fighters himself or in a move to counter being dampened, assign the 6 fighters to 6 different pilots and deal damage.
Assigned fighters should still count as controlled drone units btw.
a naive non-carrier pilot suggestion Bruno
I agree
Fighters/Drones are not the cause to lag. 500 people in system is.
Whats next? Nerf missiles because they cause lag? HAHAHAHHAHA!
This sig demonstrate the problem is not drones or fighters but the amount of people show up to blobs and fleets. |
Sinner aint'no'Saint
Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 03:31:00 -
[1039]
In the interest of being objective... one BS cannot tank one carrier, provided that the carrier pilot has even somewhat mediocre skills.
Now to all u people thinking this is a good idea.... PLEASE GO PLAY WOW or some other game where there are skill caps and people who have been playing for two weeks can be on par with people who have been playing for 2 years. I don't recall who, but one of you had the audacity to say, and I am paraphrasing, " Just because a ship cost 30b and took two years to train for does not mean it should be an uber pwnage machine..." YES IT DOES!!! Holy **** yes it does. You cant really be that stupid can you? As far as im concerned, Moms should be able to solo small BS gangs, and titans should be popping Dreads with a volley or two. BUT NO. CCP in their infinite wisdom has decided that people should put in countless hours only to serve other people and be stuck inside POSes. Yay. And what a poor choice to release this **** on a Sunday when there would be limited Dev appearances. You guys (CCP + the dumb ****s that like this idea) are SERIOUS MONKEYS and should be drawn and quartered, or forced to endure an afternoon with my ex-girlfriend....
Also... I pity whoever the Dev was that posted this blog/came up with this idea.... I wont bother remember your name in hopes that you lose your job or at least get demoted or sent back to QA (QA seriously?)... WHY THE HELL WOULD U RELEASE THIS PRIOR TO EVE FEST!?!?!?! You must have a fetish for public floggings?
|
Steppa
Gallente Incognito Inc
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 03:42:00 -
[1040]
Originally by: Rodamus Zero Edited by: Rodamus Zero on 21/10/2007 11:17:04 Another point on fighters directly, why do they have the same sized signature radius as heavy drones when they are clearly much bigger in size? given the fact that an increase would make them alot more vunerable to any type of offensive attack, it just seems strange that they are the same and dont fall inline with Light/Scouts < Medium < Heavies. Also, the very "much talked about" Bandwidth, what will that do to the drone heavy carriers/motherships?
Because fighters are flown by human pilots when far better ability to maneuver in combat. That's the original reply I remember from back before they were put into the game. None of the other drones can warp either, so that wrecks the whole "in line with other drones" argument. Fighters are not drones.
|
|
Vivian Archemides
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 03:43:00 -
[1041]
If you want carriers to be support ships instead of solo pwnmobiles, make them behave as they do in real life.
I was stationed in the reactor dept on a Nimitz class super-carrier for years and was bridge liason for most of that time so I have seen all the different types of operations possible on a carrier, so here are some ideas.
Carriers have fighters, thats it, on my ship we had over 100 planes. Obviously you cant have that many fighters in EVE but no matter. Thats the carriers main operation and they are ALL controlled by the carrier, they report back to the carrier and are directed by it. I dont remember the captain ordering the frigate support captain to "take that wing of fighters please my communications system cant handle it."
But this is what should happen in my opinion.
Carriers can no longer assign fighters to people at all, they are all controlled by the carrier, add a new module called "Sensor Linking" make it available only to Carriers and Battleships, aka make the computer and power too high for anything else. Using the sensor linking module the battleships can relay whatever is on their overview to the carrier. Therefore the carrier can be in the same system away from the gate and can see on their overview what their support battleships can see. This is how we work in the modern navy, we can see within our radar range and we can have the radars of our support ships link their info via satellite back to us so we can have an overlapping and ridiculously huge range of sight.Using this overlay addition the carrier can control its fighters. Now, you make it so that a Carrier can control only 10 fighters (5 is too few, way too few for a capital ship based on fighters) and for each battle ship that has a Sensor Link Module it can extend an additional flight of 5 up to its maximum. If the BS dies, the fighters are instantly recalled, warp out and redock with the carrier unless there are redundant SensorLinked BS in the system that are active in the area the fighters are at and linked in to the carrier.
As for support, make a "Triage Link" module that takes a high power slot and broadcasts a signal linked to the carriers Triage module that whenever the carrier locks a ship with the Triage Link module it insta-locks. It might be over powered but you could make it so it didnt count as an active lock and didnt count towards your lock total if you dont have fighters deployed. That way a true support carrier would be possible, one that could deploy its waves of fighters, but when it brought them back in and went into an "advanced triage" mode it tanked a little better and was able to insta-lock all the people that have the TriageLink module enabling it to actually support its fleet, but it would lose all offensive power at that point.
This way tactics make sense, early in the battle the ships go in and pound away, the carriers sit off acting as support and when the field is being won or lost the pilot could make a choice to either continue and try to save its fleet using logistic support or shut down its logistic capabilities and unleash its wave of offensive power if it has enough SensorLinked BS alive at the time to either fight to mop up or hope to turn the tide of the battle.
I think this would make the carrier not a solo-pwnmobile only being able to deploy 10 fighters by itself, and give a truly useful support capability in smaller fleet engagements where lag doesnt completely kill the fun.
Thats my two cents
|
Zygdriel
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 03:44:00 -
[1042]
HORRIBLE idea, looks like ccp cant decide themselves about carrier roles, etc, its a logistic, but its a droneboat, but buff to fighters, but nerf to fighters, but it cynos, but it carries stuff....if you want to do this, make different types of capitals, a logistics capital, a support capital, etc, dont just spam everything on one ship, you will want to change it all the time, also diferent capital types sounds an interesting idea
|
Spartikaz
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 03:46:00 -
[1043]
Its easy it launches 5 astartes. DONE!
|
Haakelen
Gallente United Forces Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 03:51:00 -
[1044]
After the incredible outcry against this remarkably bad idea, I sincerely hope that CCP is no longer considering it.
|
Ampoliros
Shadow Company FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 03:54:00 -
[1045]
Holy 40-page flamefest, batman!
I've seen this idea proposed on Features and Ideas Discussion long before it was here, so I wouldn't flame Zulupark for it. Not to mention, I think threatening to beat up the dev because he had the audacity to make a balance change to your ship is pretty damn lame.
Now, that said, I both like and dislike it. The main problem I can see is that is the incredible amount of micromanaging going to be necessary in order to utilize a carrier with any effectiveness; this makes flying carriers not fun.
But, I think the basic idea of limiting the solopwnmobile effectiveness of carriers by dropping the fighters control amounts is fine. Its a nerf, but nerfs aren't always unjustified. So, then, I'd prefer then that if something like this is implemented that its usage be behind the scenes for the player. Perhaps the fighters are automatically assigned when launched to spare pilots (and reassign to different pilots depending on warpins, warpouts, current fighter orders, etc) or even that all fighters remain under the control of the launching ship, but maintaining any number above 5 requires that someone in the fleet have a free drone control 'slot'. ------------------------------------ My statements are not those of my corp or of my alliance, nor anyone else.
[Insert witty comment here] |
Cynthia Nixon
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 03:56:00 -
[1046]
With a 6-month skill training time, a carrier SHOULD be able to pwn battleships.
How you could think it would be a good idea to take half a year of our skillpoints and turn this thing into a huge Domi is beyond me.
How about for once you guys actually work on one of the literally HUNDREDS of things we repeatedly BEG you to fix, rather than nerf something that were quite happy with?
|
Francois Ferdinand
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 03:56:00 -
[1047]
Thank you for posting this, sailor. As ex-military myself, I am in total agreement with you.. this is possibly the best idea that has come out of this entire 43 page slugfest. CCP members, I don't agree with the namecalling the other players are doing to you, but the original idea is quite out of the question. Something more along these lines would be more torwards acceptable.
Originally by: Vivian Archemides If you want carriers to be support ships instead of solo pwnmobiles, make them behave as they do in real life.
I was stationed in the reactor dept on a Nimitz class super-carrier for years and was bridge liason for most of that time so I have seen all the different types of operations possible on a carrier, so here are some ideas.
Carriers have fighters, thats it, on my ship we had over 100 planes. Obviously you cant have that many fighters in EVE but no matter. Thats the carriers main operation and they are ALL controlled by the carrier, they report back to the carrier and are directed by it. I dont remember the captain ordering the frigate support captain to "take that wing of fighters please my communications system cant handle it."
But this is what should happen in my opinion.
Carriers can no longer assign fighters to people at all, they are all controlled by the carrier, add a new module called "Sensor Linking" make it available only to Carriers and Battleships, aka make the computer and power too high for anything else. Using the sensor linking module the battleships can relay whatever is on their overview to the carrier. Therefore the carrier can be in the same system away from the gate and can see on their overview what their support battleships can see. This is how we work in the modern navy, we can see within our radar range and we can have the radars of our support ships link their info via satellite back to us so we can have an overlapping and ridiculously huge range of sight.Using this overlay addition the carrier can control its fighters. Now, you make it so that a Carrier can control only 10 fighters (5 is too few, way too few for a capital ship based on fighters) and for each battle ship that has a Sensor Link Module it can extend an additional flight of 5 up to its maximum. If the BS dies, the fighters are instantly recalled, warp out and redock with the carrier unless there are redundant SensorLinked BS in the system that are active in the area the fighters are at and linked in to the carrier.
As for support, make a "Triage Link" module that takes a high power slot and broadcasts a signal linked to the carriers Triage module that whenever the carrier locks a ship with the Triage Link module it insta-locks. It might be over powered but you could make it so it didnt count as an active lock and didnt count towards your lock total if you dont have fighters deployed. That way a true support carrier would be possible, one that could deploy its waves of fighters, but when it brought them back in and went into an "advanced triage" mode it tanked a little better and was able to insta-lock all the people that have the TriageLink module enabling it to actually support its fleet, but it would lose all offensive power at that point.
This way tactics make sense, early in the battle the ships go in and pound away, the carriers sit off acting as support and when the field is being won or lost the pilot could make a choice to either continue and try to save its fleet using logistic support or shut down its logistic capabilities and unleash its wave of offensive power if it has enough SensorLinked BS alive at the time to either fight to mop up or hope to turn the tide of the battle.
I think this would make the carrier not a solo-pwnmobile only being able to deploy 10 fighters by itself, and give a truly useful support capability in smaller fleet engagements where lag doesnt completely kill the fun.
Thats my two cents
|
Founder O'do
Minmatar Founder's of the Dominion The Dominion Empire
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 03:56:00 -
[1048]
IMHO CCP is far too worried about balancing the ships of the 4 races. if all ships are made equal or balanced then really why have 4 races to start with? Life isnt balanced, wars arent balanced, so why for the last 1-2 years has CCP been on this path of balancing? it hasnt always been this way. seems CCP wishes to cater to the newer players complaints that veteran eve player A in ship B can WTFPWN his ass. well we all started out n00bs and we had to learn skills and ways to fight or do what ever occupation 1 chose to do in eve. CCP should worry about fixing bugs, glitches , server stability and capacity, and adding new content befofe takign their time to 'balance' things. each race ans ship class should have its own strengths and weaknesses and a good pilto shoul dbe able to understand these and adapt his fighting style to what race/class ship he is fighting against. if all ships are equal really what is the point? i have yet to meet a majority of veteran players that has 1 good thing to say about all this balancing, where we want new content all we get are the skills and ships we have trained for over the years made all but worthless. CCP realize the new players just have to train up as we veteran players have, if u make it so balanced that the new players are all but on an even field with the vets u will imho see a mass exodus of the veteran players and you will see the eve server left populated by chinesse farming corporations. instead of fixign what isnt broken how about fixing what is broken? in closing leave the capitals alone CCP players have taken the time to train up for these ships spending many months for the skills and support skills, and secifically about carriers i suggest u take a good look at a real aircraft carrier, last time i looked they were able to deploy their fighter fleet in its entirty to defend defensively or offensively their own ship, not just act in the role of support ship. In Zuluparks dev post he stated he hasnt received his nerf bat yet well i suggest he never receives one and that the rest of the nerf bats be rounded up and disposed of. Sincerely, Founder O'do |
Sarah Aubry
Caldari School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 04:08:00 -
[1049]
Instead of these proposed ideas i propose a slight boost: Give capitals close range defense:
RL comparison, USS Carl Vinson armed with: 2 + Mk 57 Mod3 Sea Sparrow (19km range) 2 + RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile (9.5km range) 3 + Phalanx CIWS (~1.5km range)
Yes it is a projected force platform but it also has quite significant air defense. Now in eve air defense would be.... anti-drone/fighter defense?
So i put forth the following for discussion:
Should a carrier/dreadnought/mothership/titan have automatic defenses against drones/other fighters or perhaps even ALL ships at extreme close range?
I think the whole bumping a ship idea is possibly the lamest thing in eve. So if drones/fighters were sent in too close should they be shredded to pieces?
|
Cynthia Nixon
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 04:10:00 -
[1050]
Everyone has smartbombs fitted for this very purpose.
|
|
Firane
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 04:11:00 -
[1051]
Originally by: Mindlles Im sry if u suck at the game, as u prolly do comming up with a worthless ide as this.
Put ur brain into working with desyncs and server lagg insteed.
Mindlles for president TBQH
-----
|
Naru Narussegawa
Veto. Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 04:17:00 -
[1052]
Mon [00:07.38] <@El-Diablito> did you flame the thread yet? Mon [00:07.40] <@El-Diablito> DID YOU FLAME IT Mon [00:07.41] <@El-Diablito> this is important!
Done.
|
Mordarx
VersaTech Interstellar Ltd. SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 04:21:00 -
[1053]
Sorry if this has been said before but 42 pages is a lot of reading.
I say:
- Get rid of fighters - Allow ships to dock with carrier, you know, make it a CARRIER. (Obviously limited size and number etc etc)
Carriers then can cyno small gangs in and support them and have no DPS themselves.
|
Yorda
Kudzu Collective Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 04:26:00 -
[1054]
Originally by: Mordarx Sorry if this has been said before but 42 pages is a lot of reading.
I say:
- Get rid of fighters - Allow ships to dock with carrier, you know, make it a CARRIER. (Obviously limited size and number etc etc)
Carriers then can cyno small gangs in and support them and have no DPS themselves.
I'm sorry, that idea is too cool to have in Eve Online! Perhaps this crazy make-shift nerf thiny is more to your liking? PS: Lag doesn't exist and doesn't work into our design ideas! LALALALALALALA!
I am still a goon so this signature stays |
Aleric Vikyz
Shadow Of The Light R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 04:31:00 -
[1055]
Whoever thought this up is a complete moron.
|
Slimmy
The Graduates Brutally Clever Empire
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 04:31:00 -
[1056]
Edited by: Slimmy on 22/10/2007 04:31:48 I agree with most of the last 40+ pages.
Now, add tech 2 dreads/carriers with even more firepower pls.
|
ElfeGER
Black Eclipse Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 04:35:00 -
[1057]
this blog basicly shows the state of current 0.0 warefare and that game design doesn't understand/ignores whats going on
|
Baleur
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 04:39:00 -
[1058]
Carriers not to be better-than-battleships-at-destroying-stuff ??????
Carriers are way more expensive. The figheters are expensive. The skills take longer to train. Why the hell should it be more expensive, have more expensive stuff, and take longer to train if it is gonna be CRAPPIER than the "lower" ship??
Its like making a cruiser weaker than a frigate, whats the point in having the cruiser then? Just use the frigates!
Carriers are supposed to be uber, they are carriers.. Just make them weaker in terms of armor or shield, or whatever.. Dont nerf their firepower (which comes from the fighters anyway).
The idea is stupid anyway, to only control 5 at a time per gangmate? Dont you realize that every single corp using a carrier would just tell eachother to attack the same battleship with the fighters anyway? The ONLY thing you are doing is making it more complicated to do the exact same task as the carrier pilot alone could do before. Battleships will still get ripped apart by 20 fighters at once, you are just forcing 3 other people to preform 2 mouse clicks. Whats the point?
|
Bo Kantrel
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 04:45:00 -
[1059]
Somebody needs to take the DEV team on a field trip to a REAL carrier..
And make sure they cross the Equator and introduce them to the Crossing the Line ceremony...
|
Aleric Vikyz
Shadow Of The Light R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 04:46:00 -
[1060]
Originally by: Bo Kantrel Somebody needs to take the DEV team on a field trip to a REAL carrier..
And make sure they cross the Equator and introduce them to the Crossing the Line ceremony...
At the very least they should take a field trip to an EVE Carrier...
|
|
Ma Zhiqiang
Minmatar Huang Yinglong Namtz'aar k'in
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 04:49:00 -
[1061]
I think these ideas of changing carriers/moms are basicly good. As said, these ships are mainly set to be supporting ships, just like big logistic ships. I can't see anything wrong in that statement.
|
MrNIce Guy
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 04:51:00 -
[1062]
omg zulupark ..do behave im guessing tht u play on tranq.. got wtf bbq'd by a m/s player and have a personal grude.. get over it man and move on we gota have super caps in game tht work not super haulers/store rooms i think all the guys tht have invested 12 months building up there super cap building programme will not be overpleased with your silly idea mibbe you should spend at least 1 more year with "Billing" at ccp b4 you get to grips with motherships..a giant leap from "billing"
|
Cevin North
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 04:52:00 -
[1063]
It looks like it is all stated before but i dont get this blog, i honestly dont...
In the last 6 months carriers and motherships have been nerfed over and over. The following abilities have been taken away: 1) to put a ship i nthe maintenance bay with a cargocontainer in it 2) to allow the fighters to be out when the ship is inside a pos 3) the ability to succesfully pindown a capital ship with frigs alone so that it is killable.
And now u want to nerf it down even further so that it is unable, unless you got all 68 day long skills to L5 to defend itsself against 1 battleship that pins it down?
One good battleship pilot can tank 5 fightersand is therefore quite kapable of pinpointing your new design down. Yet the carrier cost around 10x the price of that battleship, and the fighters are 20x the equivalent of the price of ogre II drones.
Yet they are not allowed to defend themselves without a support fleet to help move them around.
If you nerf it down, then also upgrade something else so a carrier remains to be fun and does not become obsolete...
|
neur0n
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 04:53:00 -
[1064]
Really bad idea.
-
Originally by: Masta Killa ASCN - The way their frigfleets kamikaze on our missiles is horrifying. We can't afford to keep buying more and more missiles only to have them destroyed by ASCN frigs! |
Marlona Sky
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 05:04:00 -
[1065]
Um... Its a carrier!!!!! Carriers have a bunch of fighters. Carriers launch a bunch of fighters. Carriers do NOT need other ships to determine how many fighters it can have out.
CCP, its simple... come on, look it up if you want.
Stop listening to the one month old players who got mad because they thought they should be able to solo a carrier.
Carriers do NOT go to the front line where the action is. They are hundreds of miles away launching lots of fighters to go in and do the work.
So if your gonna go thru with this change then do all of the EVE players a favor and just take away all forms of protection and make where an Ibis can solo a carrier with no problems. Oh, and the carrier can drop into triage mode to remote repair that Ibis in case the Ibis accidentally got too close and bumped into him/her.
Well my fellow EVE players, they said they would introduce jump freighters. Here they are! /me points to the carriers and moms
|
Marlona Sky
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 05:09:00 -
[1066]
Originally by: Ma Zhiqiang I think these ideas of changing carriers/moms are basicly good. As said, these ships are mainly set to be supporting ships, just like big logistic ships. I can't see anything wrong in that statement.
WAKE UP!
Turn on the news or something or ask someone what a carrier does! Yeah, a carrier that helps keep another ship alive is called killing the enemy with those airplane looking things that it has before that enemy kills the friendly ship. What do you think uses the "Runway" on the ship? Thats not a auto-body shop for the other ships to land on to get fixed you know.
I mean seriously step away from the game and actually look up what a carrier is!
|
Kitaen
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 05:13:00 -
[1067]
I'm amazed at the total lack of reading comprehension here. I guess everyone wants to be a Goon and create a drama bomb over nothing.
From the dev blog:
Quote: Well, we have an idea, and before you go ballistic remember that this is an idea and weære still working on it:
Oops, too late. 42 pages of junk by people who can't read. Amazing.
|
Othnark
Minmatar Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 05:14:00 -
[1068]
Edited by: Othnark on 22/10/2007 05:15:01 Dude please seriously, you over nerf everything stop messing with ship balance ffs. We are all able to play fine with our ships currently.
AND A 30 BIL ISK SHIP SHOULD BE A OMFG I *****FASTER THAN YOUR BS PWN MOBILE!
seriously fix pos warfare or quite and live on welfare because with crap like this save the CCP HR department the effort, your unnecessary at CCP.
|
Brka
Vendetta Underground Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 05:18:00 -
[1069]
I can some this up in four dots: Dot 1: Bad Idea. Drop it. Try again. Dot 2: After being in online games for 19 years and served as tester/dev/etc etc on a lot of them, I see this as a "lets fix this because we don't like it" idea. It's going to fundamentally change the game for people who have master these skills after CCP said they wanted them being on the frontline. Dot 3: 85% negative feedback in engineering generally means back to the drawing board especially when it comes to functionality and money.. Dot 4: I may not have a solution to this problem. I haven't really thought about one. But I knew the moment I read this that THIS IDEA WASN'T IT.
BAD.
Brka
|
Christina Vallentine
Caldari GalTech Industrials Inc Dark Matter Empire
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 05:24:00 -
[1070]
Originally by: Kitaen I'm amazed at the total lack of reading comprehension here. I guess everyone wants to be a Goon and create a drama bomb over nothing.
From the dev blog:
Quote: Well, we have an idea, and before you go ballistic remember that this is an idea and weære still working on it:
Oops, too late. 42 pages of junk by people who can't read. Amazing.
Perhaps people would have reacted better if the suggestion or "Idea" would have been a little less ********. That's like a member of the CCP team waking up one day and saying "wow, you know what, battleships have the ability to use too many large guns. We should make it so they can only use 2, and the rest smalls, for you know anti-frigate stuff..." It's called dumb.
|
|
Cosmos Elf
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 05:24:00 -
[1071]
I think the devs have stopped playing eve. At least that's the impression this dev blog gives me. --
|
Markius Proxim
Timetravel Enterprises Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 05:25:00 -
[1072]
If you want the carrier to be the "HUB" and "support" type ship you desire...
Allow it to fit through a jump gate, 5 min cyno per-system ftl... It's almost impossible to use a carrier as a fleet support as it can't travel with the fleet well/cheaply. Allow it to warp and align a little bit faster. If u can't stay with the fleet, stay home. If it costs money it has to be a forsure thing, so jumping the carrier into a small fleet fight ftl b/c it just isn't worth the iso's.
Where as keep the mothership as a OMG fighter/drone pwn machine.
ofcourse nerf/boosting is always bad in a game :p
|
Gal'tashec
Gallente Raptus Regaliter
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 05:26:00 -
[1073]
Edited by: Gal''tashec on 22/10/2007 05:31:37 Edited by: Gal''tashec on 22/10/2007 05:29:03 While I like the idea of carriers and motherships actually being support ships (like in real warfare, ok no motherships in RL but still... ) CCP would have to really go back to the drawing board and rebalance both classes. In essence this would make the gap between a carrier and a mothership very small, you literally would pay 30-40b more just to be immune to ewar.
@CCP Zulupark you said so yourself; if the number of drones/fighters you can control are the only thing differentiating the two classes then whats the difference? Time to really rethink the role of the motherships instead of making them expensive ewar resistent carriers
That said, congratulations to your promition/transfer, it takes huge balls to post a devblog like this one as your first public appearance. Keep it up
--- Vice CEO of Raptus Regaliter Always in the lookout for good pilots and corporations. |
Lanjar
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 05:30:00 -
[1074]
1260 flame post on your first post if i was you i would talk to a few vets in the future before posting stuff like this
or play the game for 3 or 4 years
DONT DO THIS CHANGE !!!!!
|
Brka
Vendetta Underground Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 05:31:00 -
[1075]
Edited by: Brka on 22/10/2007 05:31:24 No, this is purely balancing ideas, nothing to do with lag or server load ****Don't Balance something that DOES NOT NEED balancing****
1st Rule in Balancing: Don't balance just for balance sake. For gods sake.
|
Marlona Sky
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 05:31:00 -
[1076]
Originally by: Dalekplunger Slick I like it. Anything to reduce the number of fighters on a grid at once gets an A+ in my book. Even if it doesn't reduce the total number of fighters but transfers them to a conventional, (and killable), support fleet - that's A-OK. (This is coming from a carrier pilot, by the way).
LOL And how many actual battles happen in the same system in more than one grid. Get real. 95% of the time if there is a fight, it is in the same grid. Try again...
|
Priere Yakamura
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 05:40:00 -
[1077]
I can't imagine what it would be like to train for so long for a ship, grind out the isk to pay for the skillbooks and the ship/modules/fighters with the pretense that there will be some kind of continuity with the role of that ship after the 1year+ it takes to get into one, only to get into it and have someone at CCP decide to change that role. And to change it based on game balance; not game stability. To say that this idea isn't semi-set in stone is an exercise in naivete, they don't kick ideas around the office and immediately make a post asking everyone what they think for every idea they conjure. |
Kendar
Gallente 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 05:50:00 -
[1078]
Dont fix what is not broken!
when you think of that ship.. its a drone carrier its supposed to be a pain to kill and it should be able to kill battleships in a short amount of time
this is almost like saying a battleship can be able to kill a cruiser in a few seconds so lets nerf it to be able to target maximum 2 guns on each target
silly idea tbh so just trash it please
|
Vaarmoth Malinigvious
Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 06:09:00 -
[1079]
Yep, CLEARLY Eve's problems are the ms and carriers. It isnt your ultra-*** pos warfare.
You guys clearly have lost your way....
|
Bullet Shield
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 06:11:00 -
[1080]
Quote: Awww man you can't let me run dry. But seriously, the reason we want to implement something like this is that we feel that capital ships are being used way too much as better-than-battleships-at-killing-stuff ships, when we in fact think that they should be used more as the-ships-that-keep-other-ships-alive-and-provide-them-with-additional-firepower ships. Did that make sense? Probably not, but anyway, we hope you get the gist the direction we want to move them in and the way we see that happening.
So you want capital ships to be completely dependant on other players to move, fight or anything? whats next removing capital repair systems because they shouldnt be able to repair themselves thats what logistic ships are for? sounds pretty boring for the capital ship pilot.
Get Real...........Gimping ships to the point of uselessness serves noone.
|
|
1Of9
Gallente The Circle STYX.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 06:12:00 -
[1081]
Still no answer from ccp?
How many times do we have to say BAD IDEA, DROP IT!
|
Sonos SAGD
Black Eclipse Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 06:14:00 -
[1082]
okay i have had a little time to calm down and i can now post something that is a bit mor constructive.
first of all ccp in the blog you state
"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."
In order to stop a fire storm that will burn from Jita to New Eden you should really think about clarifying it.
from what the mod has gathered this could mean sever things
Motherships Camping gates. -If this is the case i saw a very good idea a page or 2 back that said ships cant cyno with in 50-100km of a gate. Also Wouldn't the mom just give 5 fighters to a bunch of intys which will have instant lock time which means BBQ a lot faster.
Fighter bombing. -If this is the case you could do what you did with drones and just make less drones do more dammage
Unintended Use. -People Ratting or using them as haulers. This is usally because we dont have the mechanics to do it with a differnt ship. If a small alliance needs to move a high value cargo though 50 jumps of hostile space they dont have the luxary of cyno generators or jump bridges. and a freighter escort would mean suicide becasue the defender has the advantage which they can jump thier own fleet in with in minutes.
Carriers are not being used to Surport -This is becasue a carrier in triage is a sitting duck. and capital remote reps eat cap like nothing else.
Basically MY view is this if you are gonna do this despide a 90%+ majority of people not liking it you should do this.
Add a small med and heavy fighter class much like drones. small is for small ships, med is for mid range surport and heavy is for anit capital and maybe bs. Cut the cost of these to be no less than that of a cruiser. The old saying dont fly what you cant afford to lose. needs to have, and dont loan what you cant afford to give. Also wont this boost the Gallente carrier by making it have a 25% more damage than any other carrier can produce? i know that it is that way now but i can try to out skill that person with lv 5 skills that they might not have.
Please CCP listen to us. many of us here are carrier pilots including myself. We have made a capital invenstment in time and isk and this will make it very diffcult to justify the cost
|
Spike 68
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 06:14:00 -
[1083]
anyone who uses a capital ship solo is just asking to die.
delegating fighters mid fight is often quite hard or impossible, so carriers will become big (very expensive) remote-repping domis with a corp hanger?
sure fighters on motherships do nice dmg, but a squad of fighters will quickly die to almost any competent gang.
and imo the new heavy-dictors seem like enough of a supercapital nerf to me
|
Paul Castrin
Gallente Shiva Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 06:14:00 -
[1084]
Worst. Idea. Ever.
I've seen a few people try and compare EVE carriers to RL carriers. When a carrier pilot can order up a strike package on a POS from a remote location (WITHOUT assigning said fighters to another ship) then we can compare. RL carriers are NOT simple logistics ships, they are far far more, so just hush.
Carriers as they are currently in EVE are fine, please stop trying to fix a problem that is not there. Carriers, when you take into account cost, training time, and vulnerabilities (and lets not forget the coming 'dictor cruisers) absolutely should be able to wipe out a battleship in short order. Get a few together and they should seriously own the system. To make a RL comparison it's like having a carrier battle group in the area, instant death to anything nearby that is smaller and less powerful than the group or the carrier itself. And the idea of further limiting carriers from controlling their own fighters or drones is nuts. I've survived through the massive drone nerf and while that was bad (and in the end wasted effort to *supposedly* stop lag) putting the same limits on a carrier is so much worse and illogical that I can barely understand why it's even being discussed.
So though I'm happy to see you trying to think out of the box, please move on to things that are more important. Like being able to cloak things that just are silly (Titan, Mothership) or, well, ANYTHING else.
Congrats on your new post btw.
Peace.
|
Kwint Sommer
Incoherent Inc Otaku Invasion
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 06:19:00 -
[1085]
There are ways in which this could be done that would actually work. Under the current system if you were to just implement the suggested changes I think you would see alliances seriously asking how much they can reprocesses a Mothership for.
I, as a carrier pilot, wouldn't go so far as to quit EVE -unlike many of the whiners threaten to do every day- but I would be so outraged by it as to still be *****ing about it a solid two or three years after the fact and if I'm *****ing two years after it imagine the hell I'll be raising in the days after it....
Assigning fighters at the moment simply does not work, you end up entrusting 100M worth of extremely fragile fighters to each gangmate and sadly these people have no idea how to handle them. They treat them like normal, expendable drones and before your know it you're out 300M and since you can only use 5 fighters you have roughly the firepower of a BS. A carrier can now no longer beat a well-tanked BS in 1 on 1 combat.
This is terrible change that might improve lag a little but will ultimately take an only partially functioning class of ships and make them almost completely broken. They'll be used to haul, rep POS shields and that's about it. You'll see carrier pilots attacking in a BS as they can do the same damage with a lot less risk and frankly a lot less hassle.
A workable system: If the squad/wing/fleet commander could control 5 drones/fighters per ship in the squad/wing/fleet regardless of which ship within the squad/wing/fleet they come from. You would still have the limited number of drones which is good for lag and having them centrally controlled would be nice for the fleet and probably reduce lag a little further. Also this would bring carriers closer to to how they should work than they currently are, especially motherships. It's hard to believe that a supercapital costing 25B can only control 20 drones at a time. Under this system that supercapital could launch all of it's fighters or two or three hundred heavy drones if it were in a fleet that large. Under this system a large fleet of say 50 ships would have a few carriers pumping out heavy drones that would be controlled as a massive squadron moving in formation by the fleet commander. This way a capital can't fight worth a damn on its own but in a large fleet it can send squadron after squadron of small but crippling drones to ravage the opposing fleet. This is how carrier combat works, a squadron of tiny little fighters each armed with a single torpedo can take down the largest of battleships in mere minutes but the carrier can only operate with a large supporting fleet.
|
Tandori Tanaka
Tanaka Stuff and Supplies
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 06:24:00 -
[1086]
This change will just lead to alot more *clicky clicky* work for the carrier pilot. People will simply use alts to assign thier fighters to, granting another argument that multiaccounting is mandatory in eve. Oh wait that means more subscriptions for you too
|
Brock McF
Caldari Einherjar Rising
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 06:28:00 -
[1087]
Edited by: Brock McF on 22/10/2007 06:31:52 I do not like this idea.
I am glad CCP looking into capitals online, because we all know they are not perfect.
I just don't think this was the right approach at all.
I want to highlight my thoughts.
These ships were never solopwnmobiles (we all love hearing on vent, "I found a carrier or mom ratting!!!!oMGZzz tackled"), I wish they were like domis, but they lack all support capabilities. I'd rather keep away from as much drudgery as possible please. POS warfare is dull enough.
Remove moms from lowsec so the whiners will be happy, sorry wannabe piwates no more griefing, and lets move along and fix _BLOBS_. (Oh and take a look at triage plz)
Brock
Linkage |
EL TITAN
Caldari Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 06:32:00 -
[1088]
Honest to God, my true reactions.
You know, when i first saw this it was posted on another forum (eve related forum). So the thread maker, posted a eve-link and then posted the information about the post, which was supposed to be a dev blog post.
I read like the first 2-3 paragraphs, and could not believe what I was reading. The tone of the post was also somewhat comical, so I really thought he was making a fake post. And i think he posted the eve-link to make it look legit, so I decided to click on the eve-link to make sure it wasnt just a link to some forum about 'lag in eve' or so, BUT when i clicked on the link as I was reading, I was very surprised that the post was not a joke, but it was really a legit dev blog post.
Well I didnt want to judge too quickly, so I re-read it again to make sure I didnt read wrong or something. Anyways, I was shocked when i realized that a EVE DEV really had made this post about being possible changes to the game.
Honest to god, my true reactions.
:x --------------------------------------------
|
Knarfis
Shiva Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 06:33:00 -
[1089]
Zulupark u are right on track on this one. Yes yes yes!! This should be changed. I find it interesting that there are alot of BOB, Tri, MC, and Goonswarm really up in arms over this. That there "Big I win stick" might be taken from them. This is not to say that they are not great alliances at all. But you are right, the carriers/MOMs need to be changed up. They where never meant to be used as they are now. As in being used to rat, being used to mine minerals, being used to solo camp a gate in 0.0, being used to transport large amounts of goods(makes the freighters obsolete). Nothing worse then hearing people say that the carrier is now the new battleship. I have said before to many people that the carrier was never meant to be a stand alone unit, yet it has been implemented as one. I believe that you developers never intended this unit to be used like what I have described above. This ship was designed as a support ship, mainly for the front lines, as the healer of the front line as seen by looking at the bonuses of each ship. Not some powerhouse. Not a ship(s) called into a battle for a single enemy ship in droves and alone take out that one enemy ship. No. A support ship people.
I have read many times in this post about that if CCP makes these changes then the ship would not be able to defend it shelf. I should never have to people. A SUPPORT ship like the carrier should always have other, smaller ships around it to protect it at all times, like all support ships should. Furthermore why would anyone put this ship out in the open, alone like what i keep reading about in this thread with no support around it in the first place. That seems a bit irresponsible to me. I read a few times that these ships have been bumped out of POS shields or from docking range to a station. Why is it out there all by itself in the first place people?? Lets get real here.
There was one post that was close to the beginning of this thread that made a lot of sense. If you, CCP are going to make the change to the carrier class then it would be a good idea to make the scan resolution of those ship more realistic as a support ship. It doesn't make sense to have a ship that can "heal" but not able to target the ships needing to be "healed" in time due to slow targeting. That right there would make this class of ship worthless.
One more thing, I have noticed that there are alot of people angry for one reason or another but it all comes down to them not having there big "I win" ship. As an alternitive to not making your proposed changes here is an idea. There is really no way of countering the fighters as they are now. Fighters are described as frigate sized ship with frigate sized signature radius. Yet they have Battlecruiser damage output and tank. How about making fighters not only frigate sized and sig radius but also frigate damage output and tank as well. This will make them more counterable, which is what you are trying to do and would also, indirectly bring the destroyer class ship back into the game as a usable ship perhaps. Just an idea there but i really like the original one more. This class of ship needs be brought down a few notches because people are miss using it for what it was ment to be used for.
Your on the right track Zulu so keep up the good work.
Knarfis
|
CHAOS100
Momentum. The Reckoning.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 06:33:00 -
[1090]
The thing I still don't get is why CCP decides to up carriers from 40000 HP to 300K HP so that they will be able to be used on the front line, and now they are going to be useless again. The carrier cannot effectively assign fighters to many people quickly, so no more jumping in and fighting, carriers will have to sit at a pos for 10 minutes politely asking for people to take their 200m worth of assets. --------------
|
|
AlleyKat
Gallente White-Noise Skunk-Works
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 06:34:00 -
[1091]
Good.
All considerations there are for the benefit of all and are in line with forcing ships to be used for what they were meant to be used for.
This is a necessary change, and I knew it was coming.
AK.
|
Tenaka Kahn
Minmatar Blackguard Brigade Aftermath Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 06:41:00 -
[1092]
Call me crazy, but carriers IRL are logistics ships that are also capable of unleashing large gobs of hell via jets (aka fighters). Those of us who fly carriers generally didn't train them to have an uber logistics ship. Triage mode is next to broke already, the fighter damage has already been nerfed. Most battleship pilots with decent tanking skills can already tank a full compliment of fighter. This is kinda depressing and if implemented, I'm curious if you can give me the isk and sp I devoted to flying carriers of old into something I can actually use instead of the carriers of new. If I wanted to play a healer, I'd more than likely be playing wow or some other fantasy based RPG. Not to mention I fly a niddy, a next to broken carrier with the damage output of a wet sock already.
|
Anti Protagonist
Archron Dusyfe Industries Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 06:43:00 -
[1093]
Well, I'm not going to read 43 pages to see if someone said this, but here's my take.
I think the change is fine with one small exception. Keep the ability of carriers to deploy and control as many logistics drones as they currently can. They're a logistics ship, it makes sense they'd be able to control a lot of logistics drones.
I need a sig.... |
Icome4u
Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 06:51:00 -
[1094]
Edited by: Icome4u on 22/10/2007 06:54:24 Can't beleive i actually counted... well 95% of the posts say NO to this nerf.
There you go CCP back to the drawing board. For you guys to even think that idea is good is completely stupid. Also why does a QA guy gets this job? I mean wtf... so like he gets 100 questions from noobs asking 'Why did my cruiser get wtfpwn vs that guy's carrier' and he decides that carriers and motherships need to be nerf??? LOL FAILED i say.
Sorry to burst your bubble CCP, but TomB and Tuxford would have NEVER proposed something idiotic like that. Which is why they aren't backing this CRAP up. While your at it, just ask the cleaning crew about 'balancing' BS vs Cruisers fights.
Oh and i won't bother replying to the morons who think carriers/ms are solowtfpwnmachines. Get a clue noobs.
Edit: This game is starting to feel like WoW... Carriers = Paladins right? Healing + DPS, so now you are proposing we take the sword away? lol they tried to do that with WoW Paladins and a couple thousands players left until Blizzard realize how STUPID they were for trying changing a class so much.
You want a uber logistic ship? Introduce one, don't be lazy and change an existing class thats been around almost 2 years to suit your 'dreamEVE'. Last time i checked we paid for OUR dreamEVE not YOURS. You have a private test server for that AFAIK.
This sig demonstrate the problem is not drones or fighters but the amount of people show up to blobs and fleets. |
Mrs Doubtfire
Amarr Quam Singulari
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 06:56:00 -
[1095]
Edited by: Mrs Doubtfire on 22/10/2007 06:57:16 I'm amazed!
Why did you even bother introducing Carriers to the game then? I've spent many months of training skills that cost me 1 Billion isk total! In addition I've used 1,5 Billion ISK getting into a Carrier. Ship costs 10 times more with fitting than a BS approx. and you don't want it to rip a BS apart in seconds??
Carrier have slow locking speed, slow cap recharge(tell me a common fitting for a BS, where you use 50-75% of your mid slots for Cap Rechargers!), can't escape if cap is under 70%, has a signature radius like a smaller country, I could go on and on. In theory a Carrier could be held down by a Condor with a point, one Celestis with 3 damps and a couple neut/nos BS's. Please don't make it worse than it is now!!
And in the future please keep this in mind: When introducing new ships / classes that takes forever to train and costs many ISK, don't nerf them when people start to fly then!
-------------------------------------------
|
Kwint Sommer
Incoherent Inc Otaku Invasion
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 06:56:00 -
[1096]
Originally by: AlleyKat All considerations there are for the benefit of all and are in line with forcing ships to be used for what they were meant to be used for.
Originally by: Anti Protagonist They're a logistics ship
TheyÆre not logistics ships you idiots, theyÆre f***ing carriers that are capable of logistics. Just read the lore about them, especially on the description. Does it talk about healing other ships? No! Do they go into details about deploying fighters and being on the front lines? Yes! Do you idiots fly carriers? I sincerely doubt it. Do you understand the absurdity of training for more than a year and investing billions in a simple logistics ship? Evidently not.
|
Maris E'lien
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 07:00:00 -
[1097]
Outstanding Idea... NOT!
I have played this game for 4+ years. I have seen alot of nerfs and other things change the course of this game. And this proposed nerf tops the cake...
I remember.. (I will only mention a few here ofc) I remember CCP stating we needed to limit drones to 5 each due to lag and overpowerful etc to BS Class etc. (Limitation of Drones did not solve lag before and it will not solve lag now.) I remember CCP stating we want Carriers to be on the frontline not behind the lines. I remember CCP nerfing inside POS assigning of fighters etc from Carriers to reiliterate that. I remember CCP stating recently they are creating a T2 Frieghter Variant which will nerf Carrier Industrial Hualing all together. I remember CCP created this current "de-sync" issue from trying to fix/improve something whereby creating the worst game playing I have seen this past 4+ years.
Sooo.... Pass the nerf CCP and I promise I will send in a Petition daily till I get a response which inturn will determine wither or Not I stay playing this game. The Petition will include:
I want 2+ years of training for Capitals returned on my multiple characters (at a quick Glance, thats over 35+ Million SP needing reimbursement to something else of my choosing).
I want the Billions upon Billions of Isk returned for "wasted" Capital Skills and Skills that directly support Capitals only, All my Capital Ships, Capital Modules, the Officer modules that were purchased for the Captials only and the Implants/Rigs etc.
Have you tried assigning Fighters in a 500+ Fleet Engagement before? How about in the middle of that fight? on the same grid even? and not in the back? I assume you have not due to you actually suggested this. Now add in assinging Fighters/Drones multiple times due to only 5 at a time and more often due to Support Ship Losses.
Limitation of Drones/Fighters Idea: Even the mentioned (from other players) increase of HP/DPS on Fighters, will still quicken the loss of a Capital Ships. In todays warfare where "focus fire" is a crticial tactic etc, having 10-20x Fighters increases the "life" of the DPS and Ship itself due to having to target each individual one. Focus Fire on 5 fighters will still be killed faster unless the HP is _extremely_ increased to a level of a BS Class or Higher.
How about creating a faster means or more Nodes for any system/grid that increases or sustains more pilots (aka get into the structure of the hardware). Example, Jita is as laggy as only a 300+ Pilot Fleet Battle and their are NO CARRIERS there and its definately sustained lag that isnt being fixed to a level that is as smooth as the rest of the systems and thats not even a 500+ Fleet Battle.
**** poor idea CCP and seriously thought CCP would have better decision making and thoughts than this...
-Maris E'lien
|
Carniflex
Caldari Fallout Research Fallout Project
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 07:10:00 -
[1098]
I have had now some time to think about the issue more properly (and even read the posts up to this point).
I must admit, that I'm a bit well .. worried, that result of supposedly several developers responsible of game balance issues can come up with is that idea. Now I can't comment if there is really balance issue with motherships and carriers as I don't fly them myself nor am I actively participating current War to be aware how big capital fights happen actually. But I'm pretty sure, that so radical changes to one shipclass are a bit over the top.
There must be some other possible ways to change capital ships so that they are not so good with below the average support numbers. As I understand your desire to change something comes from the fact, that 50 carriers are better for fight than 50 battleships and you want to do it so, that say 25 carriers + 25 battleships would be more effective than just 50 carriers (if I understand you right). Ie you want to put the carrot out to people that would encourage proper mixture of all kinds of ships in fleet.
While the reasons for this change are good for some kind of change your idea drops short in several sections and main point where it sinks is, that this idea does not encourage proper mix of capitals + support in fleet - it's turning those ships into alts that sit in on pos and assign their fighters to the main char. Second, not so critical but still very serious issue with your idea is with current UI and communications, Seleene post countless pages before me is covering it in details, why this idea is bad from that side.
Possible other solutions, as you seem to think that some change is nessesary (I personally do not know if 50 carriers are better than 25 carriers + 25 battleships, if they are then I guess some changes would be justified) would be (most of them are already covered before) * Make capital ship attack power dependant on fleet mix without need for micro management (ie, assigning fighters manually). If you feel, that assigning fighters is the best way to do this, then you would need solution, where this is automatic and manual option is optional. * Make amount of capital ships in fleet have dimishing returns, for that you have several options, but to even get it started you would need to find way to make them actually useful in fleet for other than repping another capital ships and dropping fighter bombs -- some kind of automatic repair module that repairs only non capital ships in the area around capital ship itself would go in the right direction (like repairing smartbomb for capital ships with dimishing returns if they overlap). * Make capital ships more vunerable to the fire from smaller ships (it's not too good idea in my opinion, but it might enourage proper mix of support + capitals in fleet if support is more effective in disabling capitals than other capital ships).
There is also several very good ideas in previous pages, if none of those ideas here seems adequate for getting the end result you like. For the best results, if you are looking for constructive ideas would most likely be the case where you create thread with clear statement what you want to achive and then ask players for their ideas how this would be best achived. There sure would be nice amount of crap, but you would get some very good ideas among what to pick for the best solution with bigger picture in mind.
|
Whalemeat
Minmatar Fluorescent Blue
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 07:18:00 -
[1099]
WTF
Are employing people that do not play the game.... As this guy/women has no idea why these ships where made or the history of them.
If they make this change then every person that has wasted YEARS of training should be given a choice.
1. We will refund you all your RL money since you played 2. Allow you to tell them what skills you want changed (as your capital ones are now wasted) 3. All your isk that has been spent on modules refunded 4. All your isk spent on ships refunded 5. All your isk spent on implants refunded
Man that should really reduce lag and petitions ....
Well done for another $hit idea and well thought out....
FIX THE ISSUES THE SERVER HAS AND STOP FIXING THINGS THAT ARE NOT BROKEN....
|
Malarki X
Caldari Ad Astra Vexillum Brutally Clever Empire
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 07:22:00 -
[1100]
So umm ....
My 1,6 bil carrier ( yes Im using cheap fits )will be used as a large heal pot in fleet ops - provided I can target and help a fellow gang mate. Wich in a blob fest I wont be able to due to being damped to hell and back.
Wich takes us to point of safe spoting, giving fighers to fellow gang mates and watching movies on secondary monitor. Primary targets, if lucky, warp to carrier support for reping and go warp back into the frey.
Im ssoooo happy that this change is coming. Especialy since every normal fleet will damp the carriers. So unless you have sensor boosters in mids - you cant do s**t. Sucks to be a Caldari carrier pilot and even more now that this change is coming ...
|
|
Jonathan Peterbilt
Caldari Damage Unlimited Inc
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 07:24:00 -
[1101]
How about you leave carriers and motherships alone, and you fix blobs and reasons for blobing mkay?
|
Pykon
M. Corp
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 07:26:00 -
[1102]
This idea simply won't work.
Nearly 100% of the time, my carrier pilot can't really assign fighters to any other ships because lag, since these cap ship fights usually occur in sieged systems with >>300 people in local. We all know what this means for the ability to coordinate your efforts.
Secondly, most of the guys that I assign fighters to have absolutely no idea how to handle them and keep them alive. Most of the times they happily let them warp after the hostile ships, only to see them incinerated at a hostile POS. And since it's not their loss, they won't learn, regardless how much you scream at them.
That's basically why fighter delegation hasn't been used in a long time in all the major conflicts that I have been part of.
Changing this aspect of gameplay is just not an option, since you will make those ships useless to have and will just turn them into expensive haulers. |
Incredibuild
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 07:27:00 -
[1103]
Son, (I am calling you son) I think you can see your idea has been understood, and would pretty much ruin the game for everyone that has a carrier / mother and slaved away to get it. Maybe testing is your place in life, not designing, but with each new idea their is hope my first few 1000 ideas went into the toilet of Game Design learnedness! How about maybe coming up with a system where you can have a fight with 400 ships in one system with out the frame rate dropping 1 per every 30 seconds, and you shall be redeemed.
Back to your idea, it would be an easy thing to it code up quickly, try it yourself, maybe even patch SISI branch locally on your own machine (try it with the other testers), maybe if you still like it prepare for the thousands of emails about how you made a mistake, deploy it to sisi, apologize to everyone, then forget about it, and never check it into the main branch. Start a new idea! Rinse repeat...
Designers that cannot code, test / prototype their own ideas are just testers not designers, after a while or maybe after a few years they are called Producers.
I hope this message finds you well, and please try again, designing is about trial and error with a vision for what entertains people.
|
Shopping Kart
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 07:29:00 -
[1104]
way to make a first impression
Maybe you should fix your pos-blob crap before you tinker with things that arent broken. Try playing your game for once and in large fleet fights. I dont care about all the ew crap you add to the game and I expect to be dissapointed by your so called client upgrade this january. But, this nerf is over the top and makes me question why I still pay money and waste time on you.
|
Burn Lump
Caldari Unknown-Heroes KA0S Theory
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 07:35:00 -
[1105]
If the firepower is the problem: How about fighters get their full potential when assigned to someone else, and work at limited potential when controlled by the carrier? (as is already the case with targetting speed for instance, you could do the same with agility or speed, make it dependant on the agility/speed of the controller).
If the number of drones is the problem, due to technical issues, seriously, you should have thought of that earlier. You cannot pull back what you have given, what people have invested many months and many billion isk in getting. Solve it another way. Maybe stack them? ---- Bite me |
Sir JoJo
Minmatar Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 07:37:00 -
[1106]
WTF CCP,
now thats the worst and most retared nerf in ages, u making carrier/mom a logistic ship nothing else. and this will not make the capital use of ships less u will just make it so its 100 dreads vs 100 dreads instead of 50 dreads and 50 carriers vs 50 dreads and 50 carriers,
and i feel sry for the ppl who actually spced in carriers/mom who would ever train carrier 5 if they knew this before. 20 month wasted on one skill alone,
|
Rusty PwnStar
Rampage Eternal Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 07:37:00 -
[1107]
Originally by: Tidas Andrommeda OMG THIS WILL KILL EVE!
Just like the NOS nerf... and the EANM nerf... and the dual AB/MWD nerf... and the nano nerf... and the passive tanking nerf...
CCCP...Take a hint from your past mistakes...
YOURE ONLY LOSING YOUR CUSTOMERS
Btw anyone who thinks im serious here is a complete ****
Sarcasm aside for a moment, don't you think you made yourself look stupid in that post? Tell me, what are the training time needed for the modules posted above?
A couple of weeks? Maybe a month or two?
I've now been training Capital ships for nearly two years, too long to remember exactly, but it seems like forever tbh. Now IF these changes make it to TQ, I'll feel like that's two years wasted.
Why would I even climb into a MS? Even just being online to change skills puts me at risk. This is such a bad idea.
Regards Rusty |
Vandalias
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 07:42:00 -
[1108]
Originally by: Pykon This idea simply won't work.
Nearly 100% of the time, my carrier pilot can't really assign fighters to any other ships because lag, since these cap ship fights usually occur in sieged systems with >>300 people in local. We all know what this means for the ability to coordinate your efforts.
Secondly, most of the guys that I assign fighters to have absolutely no idea how to handle them and keep them alive. Most of the times they happily let them warp after the hostile ships, only to see them incinerated at a hostile POS. And since it's not their loss, they won't learn, regardless how much you scream at them.
That's basically why fighter delegation hasn't been used in a long time in all the major conflicts that I have been part of.
Changing this aspect of gameplay is just not an option, since you will make those ships useless to have and will just turn them into expensive haulers.
Every think of maybe not trying to cram 300+ people into a system when you know for a fact its just going to lag everything to hell?
|
Vandalias
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 07:45:00 -
[1109]
Originally by: Rusty PwnStar I've now been training Capital ships for nearly two years, too long to remember exactly, but it seems like forever tbh. Now IF these changes make it to TQ, I'll feel like that's two years wasted.
Why would I even climb into a MS? Even just being online to change skills puts me at risk. This is such a bad idea.
No, you've been training support skills and pre-reqs for nearly two years. I doubt you have 2 years of training purely in XXXX Carrier, Fighters and Advanced Drone Interfacing. All those other skills you trained apply perfectly fine to other ships.
|
Cleopatrra
Gallente Swag Co. Endless Horizon
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 07:47:00 -
[1110]
Originally by: Vandalias
Originally by: Pykon This idea simply won't work.
Nearly 100% of the time, my carrier pilot can't really assign fighters to any other ships because lag, since these cap ship fights usually occur in sieged systems with >>300 people in local. We all know what this means for the ability to coordinate your efforts.
Secondly, most of the guys that I assign fighters to have absolutely no idea how to handle them and keep them alive. Most of the times they happily let them warp after the hostile ships, only to see them incinerated at a hostile POS. And since it's not their loss, they won't learn, regardless how much you scream at them.
That's basically why fighter delegation hasn't been used in a long time in all the major conflicts that I have been part of.
Changing this aspect of gameplay is just not an option, since you will make those ships useless to have and will just turn them into expensive haulers.
Every think of maybe not trying to cram 300+ people into a system when you know for a fact its just going to lag everything to hell?
Say that when your trying to defend your space youve put your hart and soul into building up and creating.
Swag Co.We Build the stuff you Steal |
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 07:48:00 -
[1111]
Edited by: Kerfira on 22/10/2007 07:50:31 POS warfare: BROKEN! Blobbing: BROKEN! Server lag: BROKEN! Bombers: BROKEN! Triage: BROKEN! Carriers: Not broken!
....guess which one CCP tries to 'fix'...
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Alerion
Acquire
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 07:48:00 -
[1112]
(posted in that other thread before I realised this was the official one)
I can understand the reasons for CCP wanting to do this but there must be a better way than crippling a ship like this.
My suggestion would be that let the carrier continue to field and control the same amount of fighters but make it so the carrier pilot can only send 5 fighters on one individual target. Remaining fighters should be in some evasive flight mode (if not assigned to anyone else) and if aggressed they should be allowed to fight back even if max number of fighters on a target is reached.
This way it adds support to it's fleet, people don't instapop due to fighters and the carrier has to "scale" to the amount of opponents. Of course if you assign 5 fighters to a wingmate his fighters should be able to attack the same target as your own fighters are attacking as well.
/Al |
Nyack
GREY COUNCIL Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 07:48:00 -
[1113]
ok change for carriers but...
triage mode you need to be able to delegate fighters aswell.. so a carrier can both triage and delegate.
moms if you are going to hit mothership this hard you need to reavaluate the cost abit. 8-10b mineral cost should be fair price for a ship that is defenseless like this without support. also if a mom cant function solo with limited opertunities to be used it needs to be dockable and insurable. i am not going to tie up one of my chars sitting in a mothership that can only join a fraction of gangs..
also the numebr of fighters that a mom can field needs to be alot less as sprev stated a mothership will otherwise have full time just delegating fighters.. instead mom fighters needs to do alot more damage but spread on less fighters
also these changes will hit moros hard.. as i estimate the bigger alliance will now field carriers and dreads with fighter drones assigned to the dreads.. but as the moros will eb occupied with its drones... meehhh
|
WickedSoul
Caldari Damage Unlimited Inc
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 07:49:00 -
[1114]
Well, when CCP says: "We want your ideas/thoughts about this" It actually says: "Screw you guys, were changing this"
That's the way I see it
Okey, this is my carrier pilot, I created this pilot ONLY for carriers. He is born/created: 2006.02.16. That means I have spent 20 months training for carrier. For what? I say again, FOR WHAT?
So what im trying to say is: Take this idea of yours and put it somewhere in your locker, where all your **** stash are hidden.
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 07:49:00 -
[1115]
Originally by: Vandalias
Originally by: Pykon This idea simply won't work.
Nearly 100% of the time, my carrier pilot can't really assign fighters to any other ships because lag, since these cap ship fights usually occur in sieged systems with >>300 people in local. We all know what this means for the ability to coordinate your efforts.
Secondly, most of the guys that I assign fighters to have absolutely no idea how to handle them and keep them alive. Most of the times they happily let them warp after the hostile ships, only to see them incinerated at a hostile POS. And since it's not their loss, they won't learn, regardless how much you scream at them.
That's basically why fighter delegation hasn't been used in a long time in all the major conflicts that I have been part of.
Changing this aspect of gameplay is just not an option, since you will make those ships useless to have and will just turn them into expensive haulers.
Every think of maybe not trying to cram 300+ people into a system when you know for a fact its just going to lag everything to hell?
Right! Since the other guys WILL be bringing THEIR 300, the defenders should just give up and quietly leave the system because it'll lag
You don't play this game much, do you??
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Rusty PwnStar
Rampage Eternal Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 07:50:00 -
[1116]
Originally by: Vandalias
Originally by: Rusty PwnStar I've now been training Capital ships for nearly two years, too long to remember exactly, but it seems like forever tbh. Now IF these changes make it to TQ, I'll feel like that's two years wasted.
Why would I even climb into a MS? Even just being online to change skills puts me at risk. This is such a bad idea.
No, you've been training support skills and pre-reqs for nearly two years. I doubt you have 2 years of training purely in XXXX Carrier, Fighters and Advanced Drone Interfacing. All those other skills you trained apply perfectly fine to other ships.
All 3 jump drive skills @ 5, Carrier @ 5, capship rep @ 5, fighters @ 5, all the skills needed for using a MS correctly @ 5.
Now training remore cap, remote armor and cap energy to 5, then there is the skill req for the triage mod.
Please, you have no clue, I've done nothing but skills for the carrier, I could be in and using many other things now.
Regards Rusty |
Cleopatrra
Gallente Swag Co. Endless Horizon
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 07:51:00 -
[1117]
Originally by: Vandalias
Originally by: Rusty PwnStar I've now been training Capital ships for nearly two years, too long to remember exactly, but it seems like forever tbh. Now IF these changes make it to TQ, I'll feel like that's two years wasted.
Why would I even climb into a MS? Even just being online to change skills puts me at risk. This is such a bad idea.
No, you've been training support skills and pre-reqs for nearly two years. I doubt you have 2 years of training purely in XXXX Carrier, Fighters and Advanced Drone Interfacing. All those other skills you trained apply perfectly fine to other ships.
Obivlously your are not a cap pilot the amount of time effort and isk you spend getting into a cap is outrageous and diverts you for 6months to a year easy just for cap. NOW YOU spend all that time training all the cap skills and supporting skills then have a nerf come along like this and just blow it off. Tell you what you basically just feal like you've blown a grand a strip club and when home alone.
Swag Co.We Build the stuff you Steal |
Goldis
Caldari Mythos Corp RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 07:52:00 -
[1118]
Imho the major problem is how people want to play. Capitals and supercapitals should be the next level for people that like PVP. Instead, ALL are made into support ships. This game's capital pilots are people that invest in time and isk, and would even risk massive amounts of isk for the thrill of pvp'ing.
Most of the time, the rorquals massive cargohold could spam large deathstars at any siege; thus providing a greater tactical advantage than any carrier or mothership. However, its not the kind of ship calpital pilots would enjoy the game in.
Imho capital warfare desperately needs looking into.
Perhaps a capital interdiction module; That would summon a huge bubble while thhe capital lives; Perhaps carriers should be made able to jump at normal gates, with fighters following through, still assigned, but active only so long as the capital is in system. Perhaps we need new fighters; fewer, and stronger.
One thing is certain though, simply deleting things that have existed for years, is not a good approach. ----
De Gustibus et Coloribus non disputandum est.
|
Vandalias
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 07:53:00 -
[1119]
Originally by: Cleopatrra Obivlously your are not a cap pilot the amount of time effort and isk you spend getting into a cap is outrageous and diverts you for 6months to a year easy just for cap. NOW YOU spend all that time training all the cap skills and supporting skills then have a nerf come along like this and just blow it off. Tell you what you basically just feal like you've blown a grand a strip club and when home alone.
Exactly how many of those skills apply only to carriers and NO other ships in game? Count 'em up, I'll be waiting.
|
Nyack
GREY COUNCIL Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 07:54:00 -
[1120]
Originally by: Vandalias
Originally by: Rusty PwnStar I've now been training Capital ships for nearly two years, too long to remember exactly, but it seems like forever tbh. Now IF these changes make it to TQ, I'll feel like that's two years wasted.
Why would I even climb into a MS? Even just being online to change skills puts me at risk. This is such a bad idea.
No, you've been training support skills and pre-reqs for nearly two years. I doubt you have 2 years of training purely in XXXX Carrier, Fighters and Advanced Drone Interfacing. All those other skills you trained apply perfectly fine to other ships.
hmm some of us actually has skilled full time on carrier skills i know alot of people (me included) that has:
carrier 5 jump fuel 5 jump calibration 5 capital rep 5 capital remote armor rep 5 fighters 5
personally only got 2 of the above left to skill.. all these skills dont effect much more then carriers and a few might apply to dreads but other then that i cant use these skills to anything but carriers...
|
|
Generatorn
Amarr The Corporation Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 07:55:00 -
[1121]
pure bull**** is all I have to say about this even being considered Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed filesize of 24000 bytes -Kreul Intentions ([email protected]) |
Sarah Moonshine
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 07:55:00 -
[1122]
First and foremost, I can't fly a carrier, let alone a mothership.
Nothing good will come out of this change, if it ever comes out. Actually, it seems like a poor attempt to apply the bandwidth system to capital ships - despite the obviously detrimental effects in the game. It hinders the carrier by limiting its options way more than healthy.
It harms players who've spent several months training for such ships, it harms team-play (carrier-owners are likely to leave their ships at home, depriving fleets and gangs of their fire-power / logistics suport because of their inability to defend themselves and their inability to fend off possible threats), it harms the game, as it'll take out some of its color and possibilities.
|
jokerb
Caldari THE INQUISITI0N
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 08:01:00 -
[1123]
Edited by: jokerb on 22/10/2007 08:03:14 Remember this thread: Welcome to EVE swg exiles It was the direct result of developers making Bonehead decisions and nerfs.. 2 years on now most of us are in or are getting ready to sit in capitals.. Think about the lesson about devs doing idiotic things. Its a potential money issue. 24 pages of new people in that thread, it was one of many at the time...
|
Icome4u
Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 08:01:00 -
[1124]
Edited by: Icome4u on 22/10/2007 08:02:13
Originally by: Vandalias
Originally by: Nyack hmm some of us actually has skilled full time on carrier skills i know alot of people (me included) that has:
carrier 5 jump fuel 5 jump calibration 5 capital rep 5 capital remote armor rep 5 fighters 5
personally only got 2 of the above left to skill.. all these skills dont effect much more then carriers and a few might apply to dreads but other then that i cant use these skills to anything but carriers...
Congrats, you are pretty well set to fly a dread as well.
Capital Ships I Advanced Spaceship Command V Spaceship Command V Secondary Skill required Carrier III Capital Ships III Advanced Spaceship Command V Spaceship Command V Battleship V Spaceship Command IV Cruiser IV Spaceship Command III Frigate IV Spaceship Command I Drone Interfacing V Drones V Tertiary Skill required Jump Drive Operation I Navigation V Warp Drive Operation V Navigation I Science V
Thats what i had to train to just GET in a Mothership. Imagine ALL the other skills i NEED to train to even stand a chance. Imagine the BILLIONS of isk i spent. Oh wait you can't imagine... your probably still working on BS level IV.
This sig demonstrate the problem is not drones or fighters but the amount of people show up to blobs and fleets. |
Nyack
GREY COUNCIL Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 08:01:00 -
[1125]
Edited by: Nyack on 22/10/2007 08:02:33 carrier exclusive: carrier 5 triage mod capital remote armor 5 capital remote shield 5 fighters 5
someone that has access to ingame can crunch the numbers on total sp on these skills i cant..
|
Vandalias
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 08:02:00 -
[1126]
Originally by: Nyack carrier exclusive: carrier 5 triage mod capital remote armor 5 capital remote shield 5 fighters 5
I'd disagree with you on those two. Also, you forget Advanced Drone Interfacing 5
|
Vandalias
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 08:04:00 -
[1127]
Originally by: Icome4u Carrier III
Thats what i had to train to just GET in a Mothership. Imagine ALL the other skills i NEED to train to even stand a chance. Imagine the BILLIONS of isk i spent. Oh wait you can't imagine... your probably still working on BS level IV.
Well you could argue that skill was wasted, but everything else on that list is useful for other ships.
|
Roger Albany
Koshaku Interstellar Starbase Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 08:04:00 -
[1128]
What i do not understand is that earlier buff/nerfs of the carriers have been to push them out the the pos hugging role and onto the frontlines. With this nerf they are pushing them right back to pos hugging. Why would I frontline my carrier if I personally only can control 5 fighters? Then it will better to stay at a POS and delegate as many fighters as possible.
|
Icome4u
Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 08:04:00 -
[1129]
Also need to train up all your drone skills to 4 or 5 since you can use all kind of drones. Couple million sp in drones ftw... I doubt anyone bothers to get them at level 5, well carrier pilots do because having those t2 drones at level 5 x15 makes a big difference.
This sig demonstrate the problem is not drones or fighters but the amount of people show up to blobs and fleets. |
TheDevilsJury
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 08:04:00 -
[1130]
I'm not entirely sure what problem you're trying to fix. Here's some suggestions that may or may not be correct:
1. The problem with the capital-only fleet "capital ships online" is not that the carriers/MSes stick their fighters on the battleship fleet and melt them. It's that lag and autoagression mean that the battleship fleet can't do **** while they get shot up by fighters. Solution? Fix lag the best you can.
In a lagless situation, a 200-man fleet with battleships will probably kill 60 carriers, or will cause them to withdraw.
2. The problem with mothership camping in lowsec has nothing to do with its damage output or solo ability. They can only melt battleships if they catch the battleship with their pants down, as a battleship that's paying attention will warp out. The problem is invincibility combined with officer smartbombs, meaning the mothership can kill all small ships (which its fighters can't hit anyway) and cyno out at the first sign of trouble. Solution? Nerf invincibility, not damage.
3. No carrier or mothership can solo in 0.0 anymore. Carriers that get caught solo die to small gangs every day. Motherships that get caught solo die to small gangs with increasing frequency. When my alliance finds a mothership or carrier doing something solo, it's not "**** guys a mothership just incinerated my BS in 0.2 seconds" it's "x up to kill capitals".
So with those covered, I'll answer the Dev's 4 questions:
MORE SUPPORT ORIENTED (my opinion: bad idea) - Carriers don't do great DPS for their cost. You can tank one in a battleship if you're set up to do so, or tank one long enough to withdraw if you're not. - Carriers don't have the incentive to do support tasks as their tools for support aren't good enough, nor are game mechanics: -- Triage mode isn't good enough -- Capital remote reps use too much cap -- In fleet battles primaries don't survive long enough for carrier reps to take effect -- ECM Burst doesn't affect fights much, as it doesn't prevent relocking (perhaps it should jam for X seconds) -- Beyond that there are no other support tasks for a carrier/MS - Players in general don't enjoy playing support classes, for what it's worth.
FIGHTER DEPLOYMENT LIMITS (my opinion: bad idea) - Carriers won't be deployed to the battlefield anymore, instead they will sit AFK at a POS or micromanaging fighter assignments at a POS. - Limiting a carrier to 5 drones as well means it can't be used to assist in a POS siege taking down POS modules.
THE IDEA OF MAKING CARRIERS SUPPORT (my opinion: more changes needed) - To make a carrier a support ship, don't change fighters at all. You should instead add support capabilities and refine the current support capabilities. Here are some suggestions: -- Allowing small ships to accompany a carrier as it cynos. Just frigate-size and below. This makes it *gasp* an actual carrier instead of a big droneboat. MS could be cruiser and below. Or whatever sizes. -- Make remote ECM Burst more effective -- Work your darnest on reducing fighter lag, so it is possible to field support fleets with carriers as well as attack them with support. -- Make capital remote repping better. Short-range AoE is one suggestion so lag/locktime is not a factor.
DO YOU NOT LIKE THE IDEA AT ALL (my opinion: I don't) - The problem is not clearly defined. - The problem of "capital ships online" (capital blobs) is not solved by making carriers support ships, but by reducing lag to a playable level when fighters are deployed. - The problem of "capital ships online" (MS/carrier = solo pwnmobile "the new battleship") doesn't exist, except for MS invulnerability in lowsec.
Disclaimer: I don't and can't fly a carrier.
|
|
Nyack
GREY COUNCIL Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 08:05:00 -
[1131]
Originally by: Vandalias
Originally by: Nyack carrier exclusive: carrier 5 triage mod capital remote armor 5 capital remote shield 5 fighters 5
I'd disagree with you on those two. Also, you forget Advanced Drone Interfacing 5
we were talking about carrier skills not many wioudl skill em to 5 but they cant be used to anything but carriers right?
and yep adv. drone interfacing
|
Nyack
GREY COUNCIL Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 08:06:00 -
[1132]
other then that.. thx ccp now i dont need to use my isk to buy that mom after all i can spend it on something else =)
|
Icome4u
Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 08:07:00 -
[1133]
Originally by: Vandalias
Originally by: Icome4u Carrier III
Thats what i had to train to just GET in a Mothership. Imagine ALL the other skills i NEED to train to even stand a chance. Imagine the BILLIONS of isk i spent. Oh wait you can't imagine... your probably still working on BS level IV.
Well you could argue that skill was wasted, but everything else on that list is useful for other ships.
Lol idiot... it's not just about the time wasted its about the isk wasted. Carrier skill book, fighter skill book, carrier, capital modules, hundreds of drones, dozens of fighters cost a lot of isk. To even think about getting in a carrier you better have 1 year under your belt of skills, then you start to train. So almost 2 years after starting your Carrier pilot you get in a pilot and you have another goot 6-8 month to get the skills up etc etc.
This sig demonstrate the problem is not drones or fighters but the amount of people show up to blobs and fleets. |
Tamika Jhonson
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 08:07:00 -
[1134]
Originally by: Emsigma Edited by: Emsigma on 21/10/2007 12:10:02 First of all, I think that 0mega touched a very sensible point together with another goon guy (omg, i gonna get shot for this on the MC boards :D).
Reasonable suggestion to START to fix moms and carriers would be:
1) Make motherships unable to enter low sec 2) Make fighters more stupid than a puppy, ie. you have to manually chose "Attack" for them to do anything and when target is destroyed they go back and idle. All in order to make carriers/moms have the same drawback to lag as everyone else. Normal drones should work in the same way though, 3) Make a drone overhaul again as last time. Make it so that you always launch 5 fighters and then you get bonus to them instead. Ie, Nyx would at lvl5 have +400% struct,armor and shield HP and +500% damage on fighters. DCU would give +20% HP and +20% damage to each fighter(absolute ofc and not cumulative). This makes fighters a lot easier to get rid of and also reduces strain on the clients.
This is the best Idea I've heard in the whole thread. Far better than the VERY BAD IDEA proposed in the dev blog. If you go through with the idea proposed in the dev blog, I'm selling my Thanatos and buying a Moros. And I will be very ****ed about losing all that time speant training up the fighter and carrier skills. Maybe I should sell the thanatos now, while people are still willing to buy them.
|
Vandalias
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 08:09:00 -
[1135]
Originally by: Nyack we were talking about carrier skills not many wioudl skill em to 5 but they cant be used to anything but carriers right?
Cap remote reps can be used on any cap ship... carriers (and rorqual) are the only ones that get a bonus to them though.
|
Gnulpie
Minmatar Miner Tech
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 08:10:00 -
[1136]
That is completely ridiculous!!
You need to skill 6-12 months to fly a carrier and then you cannot even control more than 5 drones?!
A mothership costs 30 times as much as a carrier and you won't get any bonus except a bit more cap/armor and 1 slot more? Oh wait...I forgot about the immunity - which is more or less nullified with the recent changes in dictor bubbles.
So you plan to make carriers nothing more than incredible expensive junk.
And what is Zulu talking about???
Carriers as uber-gank ship? For example if a command ship pilot knows what he is doing, then there is no way a carrier can kill him. Carrier without fighters is sitting dead.
Besides: where was ever that problem of lonely carriers pawning people? It doesn't exist!! Is someone halluzinating or what?
I make any bet, send a carrier into low sec or 0.0 without support and if that carrier gets spotted or hunts people it will be dead within the next hour.
If there is a problem, then it exists in the fact that supercapitals are allowed in (low sec) empire where you cannot bubble them. But that is the only problem. And the X13 guys skillfully showed that with some planning it is possible to kill motherships in empire.
Huge carrier blobs: look at the killboards. Then you see that sometimes lots of carriers are killed in a row. Why? Because they are easy targets! All their big numbers didn't help them! I agree that carrier blobs with 50+ carriers are insane. But send one doomsday into the blob and *booom* all the fighters gone and the carriers are helpless prey!
Don't nerf carriers/mom! They are working really well!
My suggestion: MAKE BOMBS WORKING!!
If a huge fighterswarm comes after you, then just set up a few bombs and kill the swarm. Easy solution.
And another word about balancing. What is the balance that several 1+ billion ships wouldn't be even able to kill a few of BS?? The carriers are SUPPOSED to be able to kill the BS! Everything else is just .... strange.
|
Incredibuild
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 08:11:00 -
[1137]
Edited by: Incredibuild on 22/10/2007 08:14:04 After reading more of this thread I now have a question, why would CCP let a Tester even talk about changing what is considered the end-game for most people in a public forum? After all these years you do not change the end-game, it is the golden rule of game design.
I will now ask that no one be allowed from CCP to post about the design of this great game unless that idea is vetted by Senior Designer / Coder / Manager who will also take on the responsibility of the decision to tell the public or what most people consider a sub-killer (subscription killer). It is just bad to read or even see 45 pages of upset people and growing about a subject that has no right to exist on a public forum.
Even if this is a training operation for a new designer to see what the response will be to a bad idea, still this one is all setup for a fire storm. Please lock this thread, and stop upsetting everyone for no reason.
|
Vandalias
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 08:11:00 -
[1138]
Originally by: Icome4u Lol idiot... it's not just about the time wasted its about the isk wasted. Carrier skill book, fighter skill book, carrier, capital modules, hundreds of drones, dozens of fighters cost a lot of isk. To even think about getting in a carrier you better have 1 year under your belt of skills, then you start to train. So almost 2 years after starting your Carrier pilot you get in a pilot and you have another goot 6-8 month to get the skills up etc etc.
Considering this started from someone saying he wasted 2 years training for carriers, isk isn't really central to the argument. Also as stated those 2 years put you in the position to be a pretty good pilot of other ships under carriers with little work, so the two years aren't for naught.
|
Icome4u
Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 08:12:00 -
[1139]
Edited by: Icome4u on 22/10/2007 08:13:01
Originally by: Vandalias
Originally by: Nyack we were talking about carrier skills not many wioudl skill em to 5 but they cant be used to anything but carriers right?
Cap remote reps can be used on any cap ship... carriers (and rorqual) are the only ones that get a bonus to them though.
lol idiot (again). 15km range... i'm sure a Titan is going to bother moving into range? Or maybe a dread with all its high slots to spare...
Edit: Vandalias just stop posting here, you failed at this topic.
Oh and i have 1337 topic # :P
This sig demonstrate the problem is not drones or fighters but the amount of people show up to blobs and fleets. |
Rusty PwnStar
Rampage Eternal Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 08:12:00 -
[1140]
Originally by: Vandalias The bold skills are the ones that would be completely useless if carriers were deleted form the game... all others are useful for other ships. If those 3 skills take you 2 years then you need to work on getting your attributes up.
Here's my char, the last other ship I trained and used, was the HAC.
So tell me, what have I been working on since? My char is very specialised towards carriers.
Regards Rusty |
|
Grainsalt
Free Corp
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 08:17:00 -
[1141]
Ok, 45 pages....
Um, did anyone mention the 0.4 thing?
i.e. this nerf really will nerf carriers (not just moms) in 0.4 as you can't assign fighters in 0.4...? ---
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=554257
|
Vandalias
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 08:19:00 -
[1142]
Originally by: Icome4u lol idiot (again). 15km range... i'm sure a Titan is going to bother moving into range? Or maybe a dread with all its high slots to spare...
Edit: Vandalias just stop posting here, you failed at this topic.
Oh and i have 1337 topic # :P
'
Did I say that they often do or that it would be the wisest use of their high slots? No. Although, just to make you happy, the Rorqual gets a 50% bonus to range of cap remote sheild reps.
|
Malachon Draco
eXceed Inc. INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 08:19:00 -
[1143]
Originally by: Cadela Fria
Originally by: Kagura Nikon
Originally by: XoPhyte Edited by: XoPhyte on 22/10/2007 00:04:58
Originally by: Malachon Draco But how would you have felt if you were sitting in Planetside, and all of a sudden, 60 of those robots come charging over the hills, and all the enemies you meet can airdrop a couple of them on top of you at any point in time?
That is the issue.
This is not about the single carrier/MS, its about the hordes of them.
I would consider looking at my recruitment policies and looking at ways to encourage a tight knit group of highly skilled players who were passionate enough about the game and willing to invest time and energy to put themselves at the top of the PVP pyramid, and find players that were willing to risk billions of isk at any given time in any given battle.
I would not ask that the game be changed to compensate for the lack of this effort.
Blobbing at any level has proven to be bad for the game, so don't just single out 60 carriers when there are problems with 100 battleships, 200 cruisers or literally hundreds of frigates.
the issue is the game is not made for your little elite only. Its made for the 1 day old noob as much as for the 2003 player. Elitism and arrogance has no place on game design and game balance decisions.
So now laziness, procrastination, disorganisation and such gets rewarded? Dedication, teamwork and passion get's punished?
I'm sorry Sir/Madam, but I don't see the connection, nor logic for that matter...
Bear with me I'm not attacking you, I'm just saying we were all small fries at some point or another, and our drive, dedication and teamwork got many of us.."big guys" (even though I don't consider myself as such), to where we are now.
Sure, you might not like the attitude and that's fine..but reward comes at the price of hard work, it always has and it always should. Are you saying BoB sat on their collective butts this whole time and did nothing to achieve what they have?
Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't know 2003 players had to fight battles with enemy titans who could wipe out entire grids, or face 30+ carriers and 10+ moms while they were establishing their little space empires...
------------------------------------------------
|
Vandalias
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 08:23:00 -
[1144]
Edited by: Vandalias on 22/10/2007 08:23:59
Originally by: Rusty PwnStar So tell me, what have I been working on since? My char is very specialised towards carriers.
Looks to me like your Domi/Ishtar specced as much as anything. If you hadn't wasted all those attributes on memory when you started you could be in a t2 mega/t2 hyperion pretty damn quick as well.
Edit: not far off from a Moros either which would use pretty much everything in your carrier tree
|
Tetsujin
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 08:23:00 -
[1145]
Originally by: Aurora White Welcome to Goon online.
you are so dumb that it hurts my eyes just to read your post
|
Kwint Sommer
Incoherent Inc Otaku Invasion
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 08:32:00 -
[1146]
Originally by: Kerfira Edited by: Kerfira on 22/10/2007 07:50:31 POS warfare: BROKEN! Blobbing: BROKEN! Server lag: BROKEN! Bombers: BROKEN! Triage: BROKEN! Carriers: Not broken!
....guess which one CCP tries to 'fix'...
My guess is the new guy looked at that list and said, "well there are lots of people already "fixing" those problems so let me be proactive and head-off more problems." Then through a series of logical leaps that can only be explained by powerful mind altering drugs he concluded that carriers were becoming lag causing solopwn mobiles that must be stopped and that the only way to do it was make them nothing like carriers.
|
Rusty PwnStar
Rampage Eternal Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 08:33:00 -
[1147]
Originally by: Vandalias Guess what, there aren't that many ships in game. What exactly are you missing out on that you couldn't be in within a couple weeks? If you want you could probably be in a Titan in a couple of months.
A Titan?
Taking tips from a 6 month old nub 4tw
Regards Rusty |
Vandalias
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 08:34:00 -
[1148]
Originally by: Icome4u HAHAHAHA IDIOT AGAIN AND AGAIN!!!!
They CLEARLY have no idea wtf they want since they left them alone for almost 2 years and now they have a guy from QA working on them! HA HA HA HA!!!
You know you'd come off a bit more credible without all the insults. They have been pretty much set with having carriers as support ships from the start, but it hasn't turned out to their liking so they are looking into changing them. I'm sure they can apologize for not getting it 100% perfect on the first attempt to you in person later.
|
Yaay
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 08:34:00 -
[1149]
Hey devs... 46 pages of emo rage... ready for that appology for the total insult to our intellegence, and lack of your own yet?
|
Jaleera Kaisin
Amarr Eve Defence Force Praesidium Libertatis
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 08:36:00 -
[1150]
Edited by: Jaleera Kaisin on 22/10/2007 08:38:20 Hmm - the way I see it you are trying to fix 2 problems
- The massive advantage given the side with a fighter blob in extreme lag situations
- MoM solo camps in low-sec
Your resolution I think is flawed as it cripples many hundreds of years training time across your client base and fundamentally changes the usage of a ship from something that it is designed for to someting that is NOT well designed for and which does not currently work. You HAVE logistics ships already, why make them redundant?
These ships are NOT suitable for logistics work, they don't have the CAP , they can't lock friendlies in time to do anything useful in a battle and no-one wants to asign fighters due to the extreme cost of replacement.
There are many solutions which could work to sort this more effectively examples include:
- Stop ability of Fighters to auto agress without direct command
- Don't allow fighters to warp, combine this with somehow breaking the chain on capital remote repping (ie: carrriers repping each other). This will force carrier pilots onto the front line AND make the carrier more vulnerable (ie: will need support to keep off inties or logistics ships to keep them alive)
- Look at how fighters contribute to lag and resolve that at a software/system level rather than a "Hand of God" approach which adversely impacts the player base.
- Ban MS from Low-sec. Make them 0.0 only ships just like the other super cap - Titans
If you MUST proceed with this you should resolve other issues (reluctance to assign fighters, Targetting issues with regard to supporting friendlies, lack of Cap for logistics role)
Some resolutions:
- Allowing insurance on Fighters if they must be assigned - Fixing Triage so that you can assign fighters when it is on - Changing Cap so that it is possible to run Traige/support modules for more than a couple of minutes without losing all cap
|
|
ER0X
Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 08:36:00 -
[1151]
IÆve taken the proposals presented in idea form by the development team read through them and come up with, incorporating other proposals by posters in this thread, my own, and others whom I have read, some ideas.
- All Capital ships have the ability to store 2 fully rigged Industrial/Transport ships containing assembled Giant Secure Containers. (Logistics)
- All Capital ships using area of effect weaponry should emit the pulse charge from the Skin of the craft and not the centre of mass in addition to a 5% per level increase to range from Carrier ship skill. (Area of effect up to 40km)
- All Capital ships Electronic warfare systems should be brought to be inline with the bonus provided by the racial recon ships dual bonus. (Logistics)
- All Capital ships should have the ability to assign fighters to gang members up to and including the number of fighters indicated by a) the level of fighter skill and b) with the ability to upgrade the number of fighters by 1 per carrier level for carriers and 3 for Mother ships.
Since both these class of ships will be relinquishing control of fighters to the support fleet there is no reason they cannot launch self controlled fighters or drones of the same quantity once assigned. (That is if a MS can control 20 fighters on its own then it can assign 20 fighters to itÆs support fleet and have 20 controlled by the MS pilot also effectively doubling its damage output 1/2 shared through out the support fleet. Adds to the defensive/offensive fire power and solidifies the support role within fleets.)
- Extend the range in ly of the jump facility based on JDC level by extending the base distance by an extra 4 ly per carrier 2 ly per dreadnaught/mother ship/titan. (Logistics)
- All Carrier/Mother ship class ships has ability to fit up to and including capital sized weapons systems with bonus consistent with racial battle ship equivalents. (Defensive/Offensive fire power)
- Increased capacity for a support role in larger fleets introducing new bonuses such as;
- Remote resistance boosters
Passive (titanesque) gang bonuses to gang members on grid / big bonuses to gang links Area shield Effective super defender missiles Remote ECM Burst that JAMS Capital neuts Ship tractor beams (!) Remote damage boosters.
- Some other new bonuses or abilities to capital ships could also include;
- Drone Control Unit - adds +75% to Fighter/drone damage/shield/armour. This is a fixed amount, so each time one is fitted it doesn't stack, just adds from the base drone/fighter stats.
New bonus - corporate hanger array extension (+25% per level) -the point is logistics, awesome, here's a stupid amount of space for you to put ships in for people to use.
New bonus - 99% reduction in fitting req's for Fleet Signal Scanner
New module - Fleet Signal Scanner - reduces lock speed by 50% for gang/corp members - reduces total capacitor in a similar way to what the MWD does. Some ridiculous fitting requirements so that they can't be fitted to anything but a mother ship with it's bonus to fitting.
New Skill - Fleet Signal Analysis - Rank 5 skill needs Signature Analysis 5 as a pre-req. Each level gives +10% bonus to targeting speed when using a Fleet Signal Scanner. Should give a bonus of somewhere around 90% when fully trained.
Other than the existing fighter/drone allotment which I have expanded upon I have chosen to omit current bonus and uses as I have chosen to regard these as a given.
|
Vandalias
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 08:37:00 -
[1152]
Originally by: Rusty PwnStar A Titan?
Taking tips from a 6 month old nub 4tw
Really the only pre-req you're missing is cap ships 5 and you can get in one. I mean, hell, your started that character in 2004 so you must be vastly superior to this lowly 6 month old noob, so you should have no trouble getting your uber ass into a titan. /me bows before royalty.
Also, Ad Hominems don't win arguments.
|
WickedSoul
Caldari Damage Unlimited Inc
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 08:40:00 -
[1153]
Originally by: Yaay Hey devs... 46 pages of emo rage... ready for that appology for the total insult to our intellegence, and lack of your own yet?
/Signed
|
Ale Tricio
Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 08:40:00 -
[1154]
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?
Define Balancing? do you mean balancing so that the older players that have spent YEARS dedicated to the game and trianing can get wiped out by a 3 month old noob.
You say you've been in fleet fights but have you been in capital fleet fights with multiple carriers and caps with 350 + people in local? THIS IS A DUMB IDEA.
a motherships key defence is the rate at which it can deal damage TO defend itself. So when it gets swamped it can deal enough damage to defend itself. your idea might work if your servers werent constantly lagged to the eyeballs or desyncing. but once agian because you cant log lag or desyncs it means it doesnt exist right? As such saying we need to rely more on our support is DUMB seeing as having been in this situation the support fleet got wiped out by the lag before firing a single shot. Whoever holds the field around the ship being killed holds the advantage. since they do not have to load the grid before they can engage your can deny this all you want. It's a fact.
on your carrier analogy seriously have you ever seen friegates and battleships "controlling" fighters from carriers? um NO In real life carriers controll and are directly responcible for their fighters. SCRAP THE DELIGATION IDEA"S BEFORE NERFING THE AMMOUNT OF FIREPOWER WE CAN CONTROL.
"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?"
Um hello? You nerf pos's so we cant launch inside them. you nerf Cyno's so they cant be launched in anywhere safe. you deliberatly place our caps and supercaps in the direct line of fire and then as a dumb question like this YOU HAVE NOT PLAYED THE GAME IN THE CURRENT ENVIRONMENT OR YOU WOULD KNOW THE QUESTION TO YOUR ANSWERS????
Also WHY reduce a ship that costs " in my case" near on 50 billion isk once the mods and drones fighters etc are in place to glorified dominix status? equating to the cost and fitting of what 400 fitted battleships???? WHY WOULD ANYONE BUY A MOTHERSHIP NOW THERE'S NO DIFFRENCE OR ADVANTAGE and i'd far sooner buy 50 carriers than a mom if thats the case. Sorry make that 400 battleships
the difference 10 fighters!!!! for all the reasons above.
Lastly I and many others have been training literally YEARS to fly these ships properly.
|
Kristie
The Aegis Militia Aegis Militia
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 08:41:00 -
[1155]
These changes are a direct stab at the Gall carrier and mothership as they both only get fighter damage bonuses on fighters they control directly. The drone change is also too drastic and un-needed. Drones work fine just as they are on a carriers. If you make these changes, I hope that you will change the Gall carrier's fighter damage bonus to something like armor resist which would actually be useful. I think the concern about people using fighers directly is out of touch with all my pvp experience in this game. Carriers simply have to deligate fighters with the current rules because a few damps and you cannot lock on to anything yourself as the carrier. I've been in every size of battle this game has to offer and I can't understand the need for these changes at all.
Kristie |
Rusty PwnStar
Rampage Eternal Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 08:43:00 -
[1156]
Originally by: Vandalias
Originally by: Rusty PwnStar A Titan?
Taking tips from a 6 month old nub 4tw
Really the only pre-req you're missing is cap ships 5 and you can get in one. I mean, hell, your started that character in 2004 so you must be vastly superior to this lowly 6 month old noob, so you should have no trouble getting your uber ass into a titan. /me bows before royalty.
Also, Ad Hominems don't win arguments.
Yea your argument wins this thread, I'll just nip over to my local 0.0 store and buy a Titan right now.
Oh and your Ad Hominem argument buster does not work here, my point was at 6 months old, you've not had time to gain knowledge.
Regards Rusty |
Seiver D'amross
Subach-Tech Warp to Desktop
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 08:43:00 -
[1157]
Edited by: Seiver D''amross on 22/10/2007 08:44:19 yes im a carrer pilot and 3 1/2 years old i know my drones
Originally by: Vandalias Considering the cap ship designers are looking to change them away from that role would lead me to believe that they weren't designed for that at all. But then again they're just the designers, what the hell do they know about what the ships were designed for.
i doubt your old enough to rember the first major drone nerf, drone interfacing used to give you +1 to drone controle. carrers are fine the way they are drone wise.
Originally by: Icome4u They CLEARLY have no idea wtf they want since they left them alone for almost 2 years and now they have a guy from QA working on them!
less offenive but ya moreless, they have worked fine for a long time they just need a bit of stat loving not drone nerfing ______________________________________________________ I shal stand tall and shake the heavens with my power |
Yaay
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 08:44:00 -
[1158]
Originally by: Ale Tricio
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?
|
Das Lol
Gallente Internet Space Fighters
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 08:44:00 -
[1159]
Originally by: Vandalias
Originally by: Seiver D'amross i agree with this compleatly, the ammount of drones were nerfted once in Shiva we dont need it again. Caps are designed to be a anti-most-everything-ship they are CAPTIAL SHIPS. if you cut off there b@lls then all you have is a oversized domi and you should not call them caps anymore.
Considering the cap ship designers are looking to change them away from that role would lead me to believe that they weren't designed for that at all. But then again they're just the designers, what the hell do they know about what the ships were designed for.
Here's the problem with that thinking.
All signs point to 'reactionary supernerf to appease whiners'. You could say the triage module was an indication of where CCP wanted to go, but that's weak. Nobody bothers. Nobody wants to fly a ship like that. The No-Delegation-In-POS thing is ponderous, too. Triage turns it into a sitting duck.
Instead of listening to the players and seeing how we adapt to the equipment we're given (y'know, like in the oft-mentioned sandbox), they come down with the hand of God and tell us how bad we are and destroy a method of playing the game that is arguably working acceptably. Albeit with a few hiccups.
What happened the last time drones were reduced in number? They were given a damage bonus. If you go forward with this and don't increase fighter/drone damage/yield/rep amount/etc per level or as a role bonus, you will kill carriers. Only people waiting to skill up for jump freighters will bother.
Or perhaps this is a response to the mineral compression nerf! Build one of these worthless vessels, jump it to where you need minerals, and reproc it.
|
Icome4u
Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 08:48:00 -
[1160]
Vandalias wins the FAILED award for being the biggest noob in this thread!
This sig demonstrate the problem is not drones or fighters but the amount of people show up to blobs and fleets. |
|
Sarah Moonshine
MEPS Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 08:48:00 -
[1161]
All the good that'll ever come out of this devblog is my new sig. Every time CCP nerfs something a puppy dies. |
Vandalias
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 08:49:00 -
[1162]
Originally by: Rusty PwnStar Yea your argument wins this thread, I'll just nip over to my local 0.0 store and buy a Titan right now.
Oh and your Ad Hominem argument buster does not work here, my point was at 6 months old, you've not had time to gain knowledge.
By all means do, but the availability of Titans says nothing to my point that your character could easily fly one and use all those glorious skills you've spent your time training.
Also point your about character age isn't valid since the age of this character is completely irrelevant to the discussion. Argue the points being made, not the person making the points.
|
Vandalias
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 08:50:00 -
[1163]
Originally by: Icome4u Vandalias wins the FAILED award for being the biggest noob in this thread!
Thanks, I'll put it on my award shelf. However again, you'd do better to argue the actual points instead of relying on personal attacks.
|
Rusty PwnStar
Rampage Eternal Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 08:50:00 -
[1164]
Edited by: Rusty PwnStar on 22/10/2007 08:52:14
Originally by: Vandalias
Originally by: Rusty PwnStar Yea your argument wins this thread, I'll just nip over to my local 0.0 store and buy a Titan right now.
Oh and your Ad Hominem argument buster does not work here, my point was at 6 months old, you've not had time to gain knowledge.
By all means do, but the availability of Titans says nothing to my point that your character could easily fly one and use all those glorious skills you've spent your time training.
Also point your about character age isn't valid since the age of this character is completely irrelevant to the discussion. Argue the points being made, not the person making the points.
Then post with your main.
Edit: Your post just proved your ignorance at skill reqs, but you're not able to see it.
Regards Rusty |
Das Lol
Gallente Internet Space Fighters
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 08:51:00 -
[1165]
Also, something I just considered. Perhaps this all has to do with that 'drone bandwidth' business, and CCP is going to lay the blame of lag on drones.
Which would simultaneously be hilariously lame, and nerf Gallente to around where Amarr is.
|
Icome4u
Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 08:53:00 -
[1166]
Edited by: Icome4u on 22/10/2007 08:55:08
Originally by: Yaay Edited by: Yaay on 22/10/2007 08:45:55
Originally by: Ale Tricio
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?
OMFG, you're really gonna fight back with that one huh. You dont' really seem to get the point these forums are yelling about. Your post show'd no real insight, understanding of the game, or comprehension of what said actions might result in. The fact that you made it to the stage where your own team couldn't realize it was a bad idea before even asking us is what's so upsetting to most here.
Stop talking, you're only making it worse now for yourself and your company.
The kid has balls to fight back considering +1000 people are telling him NO (and idiot was also mention among many other names). I'm guessing his the type of people that answer 'maybe' to the age old question of 'should i bring a knife to a gun fight?'
Edit: Go back to QA for another year or two or change your name if you intend of NOT being publicly lynch.
This sig demonstrate the problem is not drones or fighters but the amount of people show up to blobs and fleets. |
Vandalias
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 08:53:00 -
[1167]
Edited by: Vandalias on 22/10/2007 08:53:42
Originally by: Rusty PwnStar Then post with your main.
My other account is inactive at the moment, but again the character I post with isn't relevant to the discussion.
Edit: by all means enlighten me.
|
rig0r
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 08:54:00 -
[1168]
Edited by: rig0r on 22/10/2007 08:54:48 NO.
Stop 'fixing' lag by nerfing ships.
|
Icome4u
Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 08:56:00 -
[1169]
Originally by: Vandalias Edited by: Vandalias on 22/10/2007 08:53:42
Originally by: Rusty PwnStar Then post with your main.
My other account is inactive at the moment, but again the character I post with isn't relevant to the discussion.
Edit: by all means enlighten me.
FAILED. Go join Zulupark in the corner for a sit out.
This sig demonstrate the problem is not drones or fighters but the amount of people show up to blobs and fleets. |
Vandalias
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 08:57:00 -
[1170]
Originally by: rig0r Edited by: rig0r on 22/10/2007 08:54:48 NO.
Stop 'fixing' lag by nerfing ships.
This seems to be an attempt to adjust the ships role and not really a solution to lag in any way, shape or form.
|
|
Swedish Bob
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 08:58:00 -
[1171]
Why do I have a feeling that CCP in a few days will come out and say that they are not changing carriers. Then once Rev3 rolls around carriers will get stealth nerfed. Much like the mini nerf they did to mineral compression.
|
Vandalias
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 08:59:00 -
[1172]
Originally by: Icome4u FAILED. Go join Zulupark in the corner for a sit out.
I suppose its easier to write "failed" or "idiot" instead of responding to an argument, maybe I should try that.
|
Beth Dei
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 08:59:00 -
[1173]
Originally by: Vandalias
Originally by: rig0r Edited by: rig0r on 22/10/2007 08:54:48 NO.
Stop 'fixing' lag by nerfing ships.
This seems to be an attempt to adjust the ships role and not really a solution to lag in any way, shape or form.
We already have logistics cruisers, thanks.
Maybe for the T2 Carrier.
|
Vandalias
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 09:01:00 -
[1174]
Originally by: Beth Dei We already have logistics cruisers, thanks.
Maybe for the T2 Carrier.
And we already had battleships before dreads, should we not have bothered with any more damage deals then?
|
jokerb
Caldari THE INQUISITI0N
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 09:04:00 -
[1175]
Originally by: Vandalias
Originally by: Beth Dei We already have logistics cruisers, thanks.
Maybe for the T2 Carrier.
And we already had battleships before dreads, should we not have bothered with any more damage deals then?
strawman, next...
|
Vandalias
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 09:06:00 -
[1176]
Originally by: jokerb
Originally by: Vandalias
Originally by: Beth Dei We already have logistics cruisers, thanks.
Maybe for the T2 Carrier.
And we already had battleships before dreads, should we not have bothered with any more damage deals then?
strawman, next...
Perhaps, but the underlying point is, why would it be wrong to have more than one class of ship which fills essentially the same role? Every ship doesn't necessarily have to be damage oriented.
|
Rusty PwnStar
Rampage Eternal Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 09:08:00 -
[1177]
Originally by: Vandalias
Edit: by all means enlighten me.
After I buy said Titan from the local 0.0 store, simply training the Capship skill to 5 followed by the Titan skill, would not make me a Titan pilot. There are other skills needed for the titan use. Those skills would take months.
The character is relevant to the discussion, as it informs others of the persons experience or lack of. You have shown in your replies, a lack of said experience and knowledge of skills and the training required to use certain ship types.
This will be my last reply to you, I'll not be drawn into your trolling attempts anymore. View and reply this as you will.
Regards Rusty |
Rachen Mysuna
Brotherhood of Polar Equation Mordus Angels
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 09:10:00 -
[1178]
no, definitely no
people who are wise enough to go solo with a carrier/ms usually get theirs destroyed anyway and we get to read fun threads
just let them be, k?
try not to "midas" touch anything for a while and see how it goes |
Gnulpie
Minmatar Miner Tech
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 09:13:00 -
[1179]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark 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)? 4. If you don't like the idea at all, why not?
1. No Sir, I don't like the idea.
4. I don't like the idea because it makes no sense and furthermore it is not working.
It makes no sense because carriers are ALREADY support ships. And they need at least SOME defence. And nerfing the drones you destroy the only defence they have. Especially, but not only, motherships are way too expensive to rely on a support fleet which can easily lag out/desync.
It is not working because we all know that Eve is not the perfect world as we would all like it to have. There, where the carriers are most often used, in large fleet battles, is a lot of lag. You have lag of 30+ seconds and more from one command to the next: : you cannot repair a ship that already 30 seconds ago exploded. Furthermore, carriers are dampened a lot so that they cannot target anything and therefore they cannot be used as repair ships either!
Delegating fighters is good and fine, but what if ship with the fighters explodes? You need to search a new ship and give them the fighters? Please explain me how that should be done in a fleet battle!
Also: Why do you want to TAKE AWAY something which people worked towards a year and longer??
Instead of taking away you should ADD SOMETHING NEW! The triage module, that was a good idea and in order with above said. It didn't take anything away, it just gave you something new. This is how things should work. This is how to make people happy. Leave the current mechanics alone, don't change them (in the sum they are really working okay!) but add something new.
Besides that, what should carriers do even more as support?? With the changes you plan you only push them even more towards being nothing but a hauler. And as far as I understood, for that role CCP will give us the jumpdrive freighter. So carriers will be completely useless. (Much cheaper to use 5 logistic ships than 1 carrier, and also much less skill intensive.)
|
Vandalias
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 09:13:00 -
[1180]
Originally by: Rusty PwnStar
Originally by: Vandalias
Edit: by all means enlighten me.
After I buy said Titan from the local 0.0 store, simply training the Capship skill to 5 followed by the Titan skill, would not make me a Titan pilot. There are other skills needed for the titan use. Those skills would take months.
The character is relevant to the discussion, as it informs others of the persons experience or lack of. You have shown in your replies, a lack of said experience and knowledge of skills and the training required to use certain ship types.
This will be my last reply to you, I'll not be drawn into your trolling attempts anymore. View and reply this as you will.
1. I never said all you needed was cap 5 and the titan skill to be an effective titan pilot, I said that was all you needed to get in the ship. There is a difference between boarding a ship and being an effective pilot which you seem to be missing.
2. Again you are dismissing my points based your perceived notion of me as a person/character. The person making the points is irrelevant since the points stand on their own, attack the argument.
3. o/
|
|
jokerb
Caldari THE INQUISITI0N
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 09:14:00 -
[1181]
More logical fallacy, nice try though :) Next.. You appear to be baiting people with rhetoric that only seeks to inflame.
|
Vandalias
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 09:16:00 -
[1182]
Originally by: Gnulpie It makes no sense because carriers are ALREADY support ships. And they need at least SOME defence. And nerfing the drones you destroy the only defence they have. Especially, but not only, motherships are way too expensive to rely on a support fleet which can easily lag out/desync.
That support fleet is a much much more important defense than the carriers own drones. Also, if the support fleet is lagging out/desyncing theres a good change the MS will be doing the same so even your own drones won't be of much use.
I don't think lag should be factored into discussions on ship balance though.
|
Vandalias
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 09:17:00 -
[1183]
Originally by: jokerb More logical fallacy, nice try though :) Next.. You appear to be baiting people with rhetoric that only seeks to inflame.
Please explain.
|
Loney
CyberDyne R-D
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 09:17:00 -
[1184]
They need to adjust the Tirage Mode of the Carrier and make a system to reduce the number of fighters/drones for every empire level .1= 8, .2=7, .3=6, .4=5 and Nerf the effects for Drone Interface Module in empire ONLY. ...
|
Yaay
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 09:17:00 -
[1185]
Originally by: Vandalias
Originally by: Rusty PwnStar
Originally by: Vandalias
Edit: by all means enlighten me.
After I buy said Titan from the local 0.0 store, simply training the Capship skill to 5 followed by the Titan skill, would not make me a Titan pilot. There are other skills needed for the titan use. Those skills would take months.
The character is relevant to the discussion, as it informs others of the persons experience or lack of. You have shown in your replies, a lack of said experience and knowledge of skills and the training required to use certain ship types.
This will be my last reply to you, I'll not be drawn into your trolling attempts anymore. View and reply this as you will.
1. I never said all you needed was cap 5 and the titan skill to be an effective titan pilot, I said that was all you needed to get in the ship. There is a difference between boarding a ship and being an effective pilot which you seem to be missing.
2. Again you are dismissing my points based your perceived notion of me as a person/character. The person making the points is irrelevant since the points stand on their own, attack the argument.
3. o/
How about you guys take your mud slinging to somewhere else and turn attention back on how dumb the devs are behaving?
|
Icome4u
Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 09:17:00 -
[1186]
Originally by: jokerb More logical fallacy, nice try though :) Next.. You appear to be baiting people with rhetoric that only seeks to inflame.
His an iddiot and a noob that just discovered he can bother people OOG also. Someone take his posting privileges away please.
This sig demonstrate the problem is not drones or fighters but the amount of people show up to blobs and fleets. |
Jin Entres
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 09:19:00 -
[1187]
Originally by: Vandalias
Originally by: rig0r Edited by: rig0r on 22/10/2007 08:54:48 NO.
Stop 'fixing' lag by nerfing ships.
This seems to be an attempt to adjust the ships role and not really a solution to lag in any way, shape or form.
A ship's role is determined by its abilities. Discouraging gameplay of one type does not automatically encourage another. Behaviour is guided by incentives. As it stands, carriers and motherships have practically zero incentives to operate in a 'support' role. And, what is 'support'? The only form there appears to be is remote repairing which is impractical and inefficient in anything but small scale combat.
The fact is carriers and motherships offer support in the form of firepower and resiliance. That is because their functionality is limited to that application. It's what they can do. In that scope, they are either useful or they are not. If they are not useful for one purpose, they will not become any more useful to any other purpose. They will simply become useless, which is what this proposed change would do.
Another purpose must first exist independently. Only when there are two purposes that compete, does the undermining of one encourage the use of the other (and even then, only to some extent). For carriers and motherships, that other purpose must first be created before it is reasonable to nerf their current purpose. ---
|
Vandalias
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 09:22:00 -
[1188]
Originally by: Icome4u His an iddiot and a noob that just discovered he can bother people OOG also. Someone take his posting privileges away please.
Forum Rules:
4. Be respectful of others at all times. The purpose of the forum is to provide a platform for the exchange of ideas. Occasionally, there will be conflicts that arise when people voice opinions. Be courteous when disagreeing with others. It is possible to disagree without being insulting.
|
Icome4u
Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 09:24:00 -
[1189]
Edited by: Icome4u on 22/10/2007 09:25:11
Originally by: Vandalias
Originally by: Icome4u His an iddiot and a noob that just discovered he can bother people OOG also. Someone take his posting privileges away please.
Forum Rules:
4. Be respectful of others at all times. The purpose of the forum is to provide a platform for the exchange of ideas. Occasionally, there will be conflicts that arise when people voice opinions. Be courteous when disagreeing with others. It is possible to disagree without being insulting.
Then stop posting your crap kid. You are a troll baiting for flames. You were warned a couple times to stop posting/trolling. Keep going and you'll end up with a nice ban from the forums.
Edit: How many people does it take for you to understand you are wrong and just trolling? 10? 20? 30? I'm couting almost 15 right now, keep going toward the ban kiddo.
This sig demonstrate the problem is not drones or fighters but the amount of people show up to blobs and fleets. |
ArmyOfMe
hirr Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 09:24:00 -
[1190]
lets try and avoid to flame zulupark guys, at it has been pointed out there were more then one dev that came up with this, zulu was just unlucky enough to be the one that had to post this
|
|
Incredibuild
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 09:24:00 -
[1191]
Looks like he tried several times to do just that, and you seem to be egging on the flame war, and I support his response to yours, he knows what he is talking about, and spent a lot of time crafting good responses. I hope they close this thread before it hits 50 pages at this point.
|
Mag's
MASS Ministry Of Amarrian Secret Service
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 09:24:00 -
[1192]
Originally by: Vandalias
Originally by: Rusty PwnStar
Originally by: Vandalias
Edit: by all means enlighten me.
After I buy said Titan from the local 0.0 store, simply training the Capship skill to 5 followed by the Titan skill, would not make me a Titan pilot. There are other skills needed for the titan use. Those skills would take months.
The character is relevant to the discussion, as it informs others of the persons experience or lack of. You have shown in your replies, a lack of said experience and knowledge of skills and the training required to use certain ship types.
This will be my last reply to you, I'll not be drawn into your trolling attempts anymore. View and reply this as you will.
1. I never said all you needed was cap 5 and the titan skill to be an effective titan pilot, I said that was all you needed to get in the ship. There is a difference between boarding a ship and being an effective pilot which you seem to be missing.
2. Again you are dismissing my points based your perceived notion of me as a person/character. The person making the points is irrelevant since the points stand on their own, attack the argument.
3. o/
You need to stop the trolling attempts. He quite plainly pointed out that having the Titan skill wouldn't make him a Titan pilot, so what was he missing in his reply?
Seems to me that a 6 month old NPC Corp. noob, would know little to nothing regarding the issue. Post with your main or leave the thread. (Fat chance of either)
Back on the subject at hand.
This would kill off the use of the carrier, in all but a very few instances.
Mag's
|
Starfury Shang
Fallen Angels Inc INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 09:26:00 -
[1193]
Edited by: Starfury Shang on 22/10/2007 09:31:18 Edited by: Starfury Shang on 22/10/2007 09:28:25 Edited by: Starfury Shang on 22/10/2007 09:27:12 Edited by: Starfury Shang on 22/10/2007 09:26:53 (Puts on flame ******ant suit) How about using something like Drone points (similar to the ships/points system used in the Alliance championships). Each drone/fighter variant has a certain number of points. Rough example: Light T1 drones - 1 point Medium T1 drones - 3 point Heavy T1 drones - 5 point Light T2 drones - 2 point Medium T2 drones - 4 point Heavy T2 drones - 6 point Fighter drones - 10 point ,etc. etc.
Each ship with a drone bay, as well as having a maximum drone bay size, has a maximum drone point level and can launch a mixture of drone types upto their point maximum. The ships maximum drone point level could maybe be altered with a skill if balancing is required. This could give you the option of, for instance lots of light drones, some medium drones or a few heavy drones, or a mixture, (the points above were quickly done and not balanced at all).
Just my two penneth
|
Vandalias
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 09:27:00 -
[1194]
Originally by: Jin Entres A ship's role is determined by its abilities. Discouraging gameplay of one type does not automatically encourage another. Behaviour is guided by incentives. As it stands, carriers and motherships have practically zero incentives to operate in a 'support' role. And, what is 'support'? The only form there appears to be is remote repairing which is impractical and inefficient in anything but small scale combat.
The fact is carriers and motherships offer support in the form of firepower and resiliance. That is because their functionality is limited to that application. It's what they can do. In that scope, they are either useful or they are not. If they are not useful for one purpose, they will not become any more useful to any other purpose. They will simply become useless, which is what this proposed change would do.
Another purpose must first exist independently. Only when there are two purposes that compete, does the undermining of one encourage the use of the other (and even then, only to some extent). For carriers and motherships, that other purpose must first be created before it is reasonable to nerf their current purpose.
With the proposed changes the carrier will still be able to delegate its fighters in the same manner it could before, so the carriers will still be able to provide support in that manner. I don't think being able to directly control the fights is necessary for the carriers to be able to fill that particular support role. Granted it will require a few more hopes to jump through to get those fighters into the fight, but the ability is still there.
As far as remore repping goes it is incredibly useful in engagements where there isn't enough alpha to down the target ship between rep cycles which pretty much rules out large scale sniping engagements, but I'm not sure carriers are of too much use in sniping engagements as it is now, so I don't see how these changes would affect it in that area.
|
Doxs Roxs
White Wolves Defence league The OSS
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 09:27:00 -
[1195]
I dont mind this change, but for the love of god, if you do this, fix the following issues first:
1. Targetting of gang mates is WAY to slow, and no, Triage is not the answer. 2. Slow rightclick menus suck, I need a fast and simple tool to assign fighters to gangmates. I also need to be able to see who has fighters from other carriers. 3. Fix the problems with fighters not returning to the carrier etc. They should return asap, not take ages...
Regards /Doxs After 9 months of being a "!" face, I now discover that Im butt ugly instead... |
Vandalias
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 09:29:00 -
[1196]
Originally by: Icome4u Then stop posting your crap kid. You are a troll baiting for flames. You were warned a couple times to stop posting/trolling. Keep going and you'll end up with a nice ban from the forums.
Edit: How many people does it take for you to understand you are wrong and just trolling? 10? 20? 30? I'm couting almost 15 right now, keep going toward the ban kiddo.
I was unaware that disagreeing with a majority automatically makes someone a troll. I am attempting to discuss the changes at hand and point out what I perceive are holes in others arguments against the proposed changes for the sake of discussion. If that is against the spirit of this thread I apologize.
|
burning raven
omen. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 09:30:00 -
[1197]
making changes for the sake of it = failcave making arguments for the sake of it = failcave
that is all.
|
Alexandra Silverscream
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 09:33:00 -
[1198]
Since this thread has become way too large for anyone to find anything in here I have made a proposal for a carrier/mothership fix here:
Mothership/Carrier fix proposal
|
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar MASS HOMICIDE Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 09:33:00 -
[1199]
Originally by: Yaay Hey devs... 46 pages of emo rage... ready for that appology for the total insult to our intellegence, and lack of your own yet?
maybe when you apologyse for insulting him like this?
Peopel need to grow up and stop lookign at their own belly button.
If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough |
Hydrogen
Art of War Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 09:33:00 -
[1200]
Edited by: Hydrogen on 22/10/2007 09:34:50 The goal is understandable. The suggestion by the devs on how to achieve it is simple as that "bullsh1t".
Now one can argue about my chosen words, but: if something is that bad, then it got a name, why not use its name?
Now here is why: 1. new ships are entering EvE - none knows their balance issues 2. whole ship lines are broken on several races 3. single ship designs are obsolete or just unusable 4. some modules still have no stacking nerf and can be abused to any extent 5. the new Heavy Assault Missile line needs a revamp and a thorough balancing with Heavy Missiles and Light Missiles, esspecially Missile velocity needs to be looked at. As it stands now, there is no chance for Missile users to hit very fast/Nano targets. Also the T2 missile lines are thoroughly broken due to past nerfage 6. Amarr is a broken races in regards to PvE. While many may argue they are fine, the truth is: Amarr are either good versus Sansha or only the Khanid ships can be used on any rat/plex for PvE. That is plain wrong 7. Triage is broken still 8. there are more issues...
Reading that a dev cares about Carriers being overpowered for ratting and actually cares about it makes my blood boil. - players who own a Carrier are either really rich or - are embedded in a corp/alliance which is industry heavy
In both cases it is fine with me, that he pwns the rats. It is also fine with me, that they do lowsec ganking. When you watch killboards, you know exactly what happens - striking news: they loose their Carrier. Frontline Carriers (used close to battle in same grid) suffered heavy losses from what I saw so far.
Players balance it, there is no need at all for CCP to intervene with Carriers ratting.
In all due respect: CCP do the urgent stuff and do not care for such low priority things. __
|
|
Vandalias
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 09:34:00 -
[1201]
Originally by: Mag's You need to stop the trolling attempts. He quite plainly pointed out that having the Titan skill wouldn't make him a Titan pilot, so what was he missing in his reply?
He also quite clearly misstated what I said earlier in his attempt to label me as an noob who didn't know what he was talking about. I was simply correcting him by restating that I only said those skills were required to get in the ship.
Originally by: Mag's This would kill off the use of the carrier, in all but a very few instances.
Why? It seems like in engagements where the carrier is delegating its fighters nothing would change. Also carriers can be very useful in small scale combat for keeping your own ships alive under enemy fire, why would carriers no longer be used as such even after the change?
|
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar MASS HOMICIDE Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 09:35:00 -
[1202]
Originally by: Lazuran
Originally by: Kagura Nikon
Originally by: Draconis Vidi You know what? A carrier SHOULD be able to nuke a battleship. and fighters aren't the end all and be all, matter of fact, they really suck at tryong to kill anything SMALLER than a Battleship. and well, if you get TWO battleships or more on a carrier well,it has trouble. and if a SMALL ship comes in and binds it up, Well it has trouble. Leave a cripple well enough alone and go pick on interceptors.
on a small scale warfare that is easy to balance. But how do you make balance when there are 30 Carriers at a gate and when your fleet warps there its all dead before loadign grid because the fighters did almost all the work alone withut almost any needing of human help?
Not easy to reach a balance that work on both situations.
Basing your arguments about gameplay changes on lag is stupid.
Lag must be fixed. Then there is no need to screw up the gameplay even more and your arguments magically go away.
lag will NEVER be fixed. Listen, NEVER, when the server can handle 400 man battles, wer will have 2000 man battles. Its simple fact. Gameplay MUST take lag into account to minimise frustration.
If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough |
Clamn8er
Refuge of the Damned
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 09:41:00 -
[1203]
So far as I can tell (and I have not read every single post) the divide in here is sharply between capital pilots and those who aspire to be them on the one hand and on the other hand those who either cannot afford them, or don't know how to deal with them.
The TRUTH of the matter is that a well organised, small fleet of BS with a bit of support can take down a carrier with a relative amount of ease.
Anyone who knows anything about capital warfare in this game knows this.
So much so actually, that our Corp - which comprises of a small and tightly knit team of highly skilled players - rarely use our cap ships because the odds would generally be weighed against this type of fleet in an engagement against experienced players.
The same applies equally to anyone who would come at us with cap ships. Bring a carrier or two against us and we will take them down. Bring a huge fleet of carriers and we will simply sidestep and wait for the right moment to strike.
Now the fact, Messrs. Devs, is that large, powerful corps with multi-capital fleets and high-quality players [viz. the MC] will keep on hammering away, whatever tools they have in their hands. Why? Because they know what theyÆre doing. Nerf cap ships and itÆs not them youÆre damaging.
Nor as a matter of fact, are you really damaging the ugly, ham-fisted blobbers [in whose direction the game seems to be moving intractably]. They will still get whooped by large, experienced teams and will still blob away at smaller, equally blobbing enemies, fighting each other like ungainly, overfed seals.
ItÆs the small, scalpel strike teams who on occasion will use a carrier or two with support from a 2/3/4 of other players, who will simply see their capital ships grounded entirely, (or assigned entirely to Badger duty) simply because they do not have the numbers and adamantly REFUSE to blob.
The irony of this proposal of course, is that as a small team, the change is apparently for our benefit.
It will, unfortunately have the opposite effect. |
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar MASS HOMICIDE Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 09:42:00 -
[1204]
Originally by: Vivian Archemides If you want carriers to be support ships instead of solo pwnmobiles, make them behave as they do in real life.
I was stationed in the reactor dept on a Nimitz class super-carrier for years and was bridge liason for most of that time so I have seen all the different types of operations possible on a carrier, so here are some ideas.
Carriers have fighters, thats it, on my ship we had over 100 planes. Obviously you cant have that many fighters in EVE but no matter. Thats the carriers main operation and they are ALL controlled by the carrier, they report back to the carrier and are directed by it. I dont remember the captain ordering the frigate support captain to "take that wing of fighters please my communications system cant handle it."
But this is what should happen in my opinion.
Carriers can no longer assign fighters to people at all, they are all controlled by the carrier, add a new module called "Sensor Linking" make it available only to Carriers and Battleships, aka make the computer and power too high for anything else. Using the sensor linking module the battleships can relay whatever is on their overview to the carrier. Therefore the carrier can be in the same system away from the gate and can see on their overview what their support battleships can see. This is how we work in the modern navy, we can see within our radar range and we can have the radars of our support ships link their info via satellite back to us so we can have an overlapping and ridiculously huge range of sight.Using this overlay addition the carrier can control its fighters. Now, you make it so that a Carrier can control only 10 fighters (5 is too few, way too few for a capital ship based on fighters) and for each battle ship that has a Sensor Link Module it can extend an additional flight of 5 up to its maximum. If the BS dies, the fighters are instantly recalled, warp out and redock with the carrier unless there are redundant SensorLinked BS in the system that are active in the area the fighters are at and linked in to the carrier.
As for support, make a "Triage Link" module that takes a high power slot and broadcasts a signal linked to the carriers Triage module that whenever the carrier locks a ship with the Triage Link module it insta-locks. It might be over powered but you could make it so it didnt count as an active lock and didnt count towards your lock total if you dont have fighters deployed. That way a true support carrier would be possible, one that could deploy its waves of fighters, but when it brought them back in and went into an "advanced triage" mode it tanked a little better and was able to insta-lock all the people that have the TriageLink module enabling it to actually support its fleet, but it would lose all offensive power at that point.
This way tactics make sense, early in the battle the ships go in and pound away, the carriers sit off acting as support and when the field is being won or lost the pilot could make a choice to either continue and try to save its fleet using logistic support or shut down its logistic capabilities and unleash its wave of offensive power if it has enough SensorLinked BS alive at the time to either fight to mop up or hope to turn the tide of the battle.
I think this would make the carrier not a solo-pwnmobile only being able to deploy 10 fighters by itself, and give a truly useful support capability in smaller fleet engagements where lag doesnt completely kill the fun.
Thats my two cents
that is a pretty good proposition. But must be tweeked. Or carriers becoem too powerfull. Maybe reduce their tank sicne thwey will be hidden anyway. Or, extending into your analogy, can you imagine a NImitz class sustainign fire form a Iowa BB and continue to operate?
If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough |
|
CCP Eris Discordia
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 09:47:00 -
[1205]
Verone gets a cookie
Also it would help if people could try to look passed their own bias when they reply with constructive criticism.
Takk
PS for the right bribe I can slap, kick or throw stuff at him because he sits right beside me
Pink Dread has been hijacked
|
|
a51 duke1406
Order Of The Sentinel
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 09:48:00 -
[1206]
Yet again another huge nerf and what can we the players do about it; noting. CCP wont care , they never do. This change will come in, as they always do. This thread has only one real use, venting our own anger. I said this in the nos nerf thread as well, CCP need to stop nerfing and start adding. This type of action will eventually lead to the death of this game.
|
Jin Entres
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 09:49:00 -
[1207]
Originally by: Vandalias
With the proposed changes the carrier will still be able to delegate its fighters in the same manner it could before, so the carriers will still be able to provide support in that manner. I don't think being able to directly control the fights is necessary for the carriers to be able to fill that particular support role. Granted it will require a few more hopes to jump through to get those fighters into the fight, but the ability is still there.
First of all, Fighters skill does not apply to delegated fighters. Therefore the damage of fighterst not controlled by you is 50% less (at Fighters V). That in itself is already a huge impact.
Secondly, the implications for gameplay style are considerable. When carriers and motherships stop benefitting from being on the field, they'll be sitting at a POS or safespot which is unejoyable and unmeaningful. Players do not aspire to invest a lot of time and resources into achieving that kind of gameplay, and those that already have are facing an unfair pulling of carpet from under their feet.
Quote:
As far as remore repping goes it is incredibly useful in engagements where there isn't enough alpha to down the target ship between rep cycles which pretty much rules out large scale sniping engagements, but I'm not sure carriers are of too much use in sniping engagements as it is now, so I don't see how these changes would affect it in that area.
Concentrated fire is the norm in all engagements, long and short. The impracticality and inefficiency of remote repairing comes from several factors even in smaller and shorter ranged engagements:
ò Distances. The reach of capital repairers is roughly 50km with maxed skills. Often that is insufficient to cover the area of battle even in smaller engagements.
ò Delay. Two-fold delay makes it inefficient to micromanage repairing: A. locking the person to repair and B. armor repairing effective at end of cycle (and length of cycle is high for capital reps, which makes switching targets slow)
ò Buffers. This ties in somewhat with delay: smaller ships go down faster under concentrated fire and large repair amounts are not able to keep them alive if they don't have enough of a buffer to withstand damage. Furthermore, some ships are armor tanked while some ships are shield tanked. Often it is the wrong kind of repairing that you can provide, which makes it considerably less efficient.
Now when you consider that logistics ships have less delay (faster locking, smaller rep cycles), better range and mobility, they don't cost much at all, training for them is fast and they still don't get used in combat much.
The very method of reducing damage taken by repairing is inferior to the method of destroying the source of that damage. That needs to change if such support role is to become viable.
---
|
xong
DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 09:49:00 -
[1208]
Edited by: xong on 22/10/2007 09:50:16
Originally by: CCP Wrangler Making changes to EVE can be an easy or a difficult task, and a change that one person likes might not be palatable to someone else. However, these changes are made with the overall game in mind.
Zulupark makes his introductory Dev Blog from his new position in the Game Design team. Following in the footsteps of TomB and Tuxford, Zulu is now working on balancing different elements of EVE and one of the first projects he gets to work on is the relationship between Supercapitals, Fighters and Drones. Be gentle on him, he's got a tough one!
Fighters, Drones, Supercapitals and control. What's being considered? Check out Capital ships in EVE, what's up doc?.
I like this product and would buy again. The changes here made to carriers here makes sense.
Maybee someone will actually use the ships for what they where intended...
** pretty please.. fix the Nidhoggers ** (preferably by boosting the Nids and not nerfing the other 3 carriers, but.. I can live with both)
|
Ruffryder1167
Minmatar Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 09:51:00 -
[1209]
Originally by: Verone
I'm laughing as I read this... for one reason.
I look at this thread, and I see the same people who feel the need to drop a mothership on a perfectly good 5vs5 engagement whining because this is going to "destroy the game", and whining that "small gang PvP" is dead.
Yeah, it's dead because people who have the ISK to field supercapitals, or multiple capitals, can totally wreck an enjoyable small gang engagement by dropping 100 billion tonnes of mothership on their opponent's face to ensure they have no way of losing.
I mean come on... you PROMOTED this changes by dropping carriers and motherships on people's faces at every opportunity you had, and now you're crying because it's getting looked at.
Personally, my corp has an unwritten list of people that we typically walk away from engagements with, purely based on the fact that all they ever do is drop capitals on us, regardless or not if we're outnumbered. More often than not these are supercapitals.
It's interesting to see that just about everyone on that list is here, whining about the changes. Changes might I add that will probably promote more small gang, and not capital pvp because of the reduced risk of having a group of caps dropped on your face.
GJ CCP! We have heavy interdictors to tackle moms coming now... All you need to do further is remove supercaps from lowsec completely, and approve these changes to head to TQ and this is a step in the right direction.
why not get your own capitals to drop on their mothership when they bring it to a fight? You can trap an overconfident low sec mothership pilot who jumps into your small gang by turning the tables. Drop some dreads on it and start pounding away. Maybe a carrier or 2 in order to keep its cap down with neuts or transfer energy to the dreads?
|
Nofonno
Amarr Epitoth Fleetyards Vigilia Valeria
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 09:53:00 -
[1210]
I must confess that after reading the first ten pages I just gave up.
My deepest sympathy to Zulupak, which has been tagged to get his hands dirty with such a profound change to a well-established game mechanics.
*** Disclaimer: The following represents only my personal views. No flame or troll intended. Offended sensibilities may occur. I'm not a nber skilled capital ship pilot, I'm just speaking my gut feeling. ***
Having said that, here's my two cents:
The whole supercapital thingie, with four different capital ship types, capital weaponry and fighters, has been a typical example of premature ejaculation on the behalf of the game design team. What should have been designed is what the real world shows us -- only one carrier type supercapital that would do the thing it's counterpart is designed to do: field additional small craft, piloted by the players. Say, motherships would be able to field large craft as well. A small haven, to jump your fleet (a blob, really), repair it and probably support in a way.
But that's not my point right now. It's no use crying over spilt milk.
My point is: You have made, albeit prematurely, an important game design decision. Now bite the bullet and stick with it. You cannot turn back now -- the wife is heavily pregnant by now and her Italian family mob will be getting your throat, balls and your left ear if you file for abortion.
A scientist must be an optimist at heart - to have the strength to rally against a chorus of voices saying "it cannot be done". |
|
Rexthor Hammerfists
Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 09:58:00 -
[1211]
So you are afraid that carriers are replacing battleships, there are some things you can do about it without making carriers useless:
Up the Risk using carriers. More Interdictor ships are incoming, making it easier to hold down carriers.
The Price of loosing carriers. Completely remove insurance from capital ships. a killed carrierfleet would demolish a alliances power for a while atleast, where bs can be replaced rather easily.
your suggestion, zulu, would remove carriers and moms from the battlefield and put em to the pos. In the battlefield the one side enjoys flying them and killing with it, the other side gets the chance to enjoy a nasty killmail. taking that away from the game would be very much counterproductive. - Purple Conquered The World, We the Universe.
|
Yaay
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 09:59:00 -
[1212]
Edited by: Yaay on 22/10/2007 10:04:52 Edited by: Yaay on 22/10/2007 10:01:56
Originally by: CCP Eris Discordia Verone gets a cookie
Also it would help if people could try to look passed their own bias when they reply with constructive criticism.
Takk
PS for the right bribe I can slap, kick or throw stuff at him because he sits right beside me
I don't get how we're showing bias. Fact is, 6 months ago, ccp agreed that asigning fighters was dull, overpowered to some extent and overly complicated to another extent.
Now they're saying, no wait, it really is a good idea, honest, the 1st time meant nothing.
Furthermore... if Carriers are the trump card in fleet fights, how is it that rise lost quite a few to goons a while back with a support fleet... IAC constantly lose carrier squads to bob, Usually with larger support fleets than BoB's total fleet... and may other instances of where carriers weren't this so called wtfpwn mobile the dev is making it out to be.
I agree, this game has problems, but this aint one of them. If its strictly about capital fleets being too large, fix lag, fix the economy, FFS FIX 0.0 INSURANCE, fix everything else that affects this issue... don't just nerf the ship into nothingness so that people won't even chose to fly it.
|
Foxy PurpleHaze
Yakuza Corp THE R0NIN
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 10:00:00 -
[1213]
Originally by: CCP Eris Discordia Verone gets a cookie
Also it would help if people could try to look passed their own bias when they reply with constructive criticism.
Takk
PS for the right bribe I can slap, kick or throw stuff at him because he sits right beside me
Have you even read the thread??? There is lots of constructive criticism here!
This comment basically tells me that no matter what is posted in this thread, it's already been decided.
I can't begin to tell you how much this whole idea ****es me off
|
oniplE
NED-Clan R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 10:03:00 -
[1214]
Originally by: CCP Eris Discordia Also it would help if people could try to look passed their own bias when they reply with constructive criticism.
So because 99.5% of all replies here are against this change, it must be because they are biased? Come on..
|
Frug
Zenithal Harvest BROTHER'S WORD
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 10:03:00 -
[1215]
Originally by: Rexthor Hammerfists
The Price of loosing carriers. Completely remove insurance from capital ships. a killed carrierfleet would demolish a alliances power for a while atleast, where bs can be replaced rather easily.
That sounds a bit harsh, but also sounds like it would be a good thing for reducing the chances of this becoming cap ships online.
- - - - - - - - - Do not use dotted lines - - - - - - - If you think I'm awesome, say BOOO BOOO!! - Ductoris Neat look what I found - Kreul Hey, my marbles |
Hugh Ruka
Caldari Free Traders Free Trade Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 10:04:00 -
[1216]
Originally by: Nofonno I must confess that after reading the first ten pages I just gave up.
My deepest sympathy to Zulupak, which has been tagged to get his hands dirty with such a profound change to a well-established game mechanics.
*** Disclaimer: The following represents only my personal views. No flame or troll intended. Offended sensibilities may occur. I'm not a nber skilled capital ship pilot, I'm just speaking my gut feeling. ***
Having said that, here's my two cents:
The whole supercapital thingie, with four different capital ship types, capital weaponry and fighters, has been a typical example of premature ejaculation on the behalf of the game design team. What should have been designed is what the real world shows us -- only one carrier type supercapital that would do the thing it's counterpart is designed to do: field additional small craft, piloted by the players. Say, motherships would be able to field large craft as well. A small haven, to jump your fleet (a blob, really), repair it and probably support in a way.
But that's not my point right now. It's no use crying over spilt milk.
My point is: You have made, albeit prematurely, an important game design decision. Now bite the bullet and stick with it. You cannot turn back now -- the wife is heavily pregnant by now and her Italian family mob will be getting your throat, balls and your left ear if you file for abortion.
/signed
I expected the carriers to be just that ... carriers. To load up a few wings of frigates, jump them into enemy system and deploy, providing logistic support and/or return ticket.
Motherships could possibly transport larger craft like cruiser/bc/bs hulls.
But it is too late now ...
Originally by: Aravel Thon
Originally by: Nith Batoxxx Hi my alt just leanred to fly the ferox...............
I am so so terribly sorry...
|
Verone
Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 10:06:00 -
[1217]
Originally by: CCP Eris Discordia Verone gets a cookie
<3 kek... now all I need to do is convince you of the importance of rediculous headgear
>>> TRIBUTE TO A FALLEN WINGMAN <<<
|
Vandalias
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 10:06:00 -
[1218]
Edited by: Vandalias on 22/10/2007 10:11:34 Edited by: Vandalias on 22/10/2007 10:10:21
Originally by: Jin Entres First of all, Fighters skill does not apply to delegated fighters. Therefore the damage of fighterst not controlled by you is 50% less (at Fighters V). That in itself is already a huge impact.
Secondly, the implications for gameplay style are considerable. When carriers and motherships stop benefitting from being on the field, they'll be sitting at a POS or safespot which is unejoyable and unmeaningful. Players do not aspire to invest a lot of time and resources into achieving that kind of gameplay, and those that already have are facing an unfair pulling of carpet from under their feet.
I've heard many mixed accounts of that but never bothered to test it myself, but I'll take your word for it. I would say that the fighter skill of the carrier pilot should apply to the fighter regardless of who is in control of it, making that change would basically solve the damage problem.
In 0.0 safespots rarely seem safe with the probing changes, so even sitting at a safespot the carriers are in a fair bit of danger. As far as sitting at a pos goes I've never liked the ability to control drones outside the pos shield when your ship is in the pos shield, but then again I'm not a big fan of pos's in general. There should be some benefit to have the carrier on the front line though, but I think it could be done through tweaks to the triage module. If they can make that worth using (remote rep cap reduction, ability to control fighters while triage is active both seem like good ideas), the gang using carriers will have a much better chance at survival than the gang whose carriers are hiding 4 planets away.
Originally by: Jin Entres Now when you consider that logistics ships have less delay (faster locking, smaller rep cycles), better range and mobility, they don't cost much at all, training for them is fast and they still don't get used in combat much.
Logistics ships also don't rep nearly as much (I believe, never done the math myself), although this seems like another area where changes to the triage module could have some impact. Ultimately the support role seems like it can be solved in other areas and the changes to the number of drones a carrier can control don't seem to affect the support role that much.
The only big change as I see it is the carriers use in an offensive capacity. Carriers can still be given an important role on the front lines even if its not a directly offensive role, so while the carrier pilots job will change slightly, the ship itself will still of use.
edit: bbl
|
NEvara
Caldari STK Scientific BIack-0ut
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 10:08:00 -
[1219]
i'd have to agree with some of the posts here that this will criple carriers & mommies i mean @ least allow the carrier & mommies to be able to get their drones out without this nerfing take effect i mean what could lets say 12 heavies drones or 25 drones in the case of a mommie do against a fleet surely what you want is diminish the capability of of supercaps being able to obliterate a BS in .2 secs but that wont happen with heavy drones so plz for god sakes dont make it as well for the heavy drones.
|
Malarki X
Caldari Ad Astra Vexillum Brutally Clever Empire
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 10:09:00 -
[1220]
Edited by: Malarki X on 22/10/2007 10:10:31
Originally by: CCP Eris Discordia Verone gets a cookie
Also it would help if people could try to look passed their own bias when they reply with constructive criticism.
Takk
PS for the right bribe I can slap, kick or throw stuff at him because he sits right beside me
Here is a constructive idea: Dont do it !
Simple yet so powerfull its mind shatering.
|
|
BalderDK
Gallente Team Retardoes
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 10:10:00 -
[1221]
come on ccp
a carrier takes about a year to train for (long ass time if you ask me) costs almost 1 bill in skill books alone carrier costs about 900mill
is there something wrong with it being better at killing a bs than a bs is that takes 3 month and costs less than 1/10 if the price?
Seriously a carrier has about 1000dps i can get the same amount of dps from practicaly any gank fittet bs.
Motherships is a huge problem in low sec imo and needs to be looked into somehow don't ask me how (hey i'm not a dev) but nerfing carriers like this makes no sence, you will end up with carriers huggin the pos's with fighters assigned because there is no reason to bring em front line they can't lock friendlies in time to rep em anyway.
This is a very bad idea!!!
The guy who make this proposal needs to go back to the drawing board and think of something else.
|
Onnawa
Minmatar Alcohol Fueled Brutality Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 10:12:00 -
[1222]
I can get behind portions of this idea, but it will require some MAJOR changes.
Firstly, carriers and motherships should be limited to the number of fighters allowed by skills and skills alone by making drone control units useless after achieving that number. 10 fighters per carrier and 20 per mothership isn't unreasonable, and control units could still be used for lower skilled pilots to reach their max. Offset the apparent nerf of advanced drone interfacing by providing a 5% damage bonus per lvl for fighters. This, in turn, would also offset the loss of a few fighters slightly.
Secondly, limit the number of non-fighter drones per carrier/Mom to 5. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. As far as lowsec gatecamps, the real threat here isn't the fighter, but the 15-30 ogre IIs buzzing around.
Third, no more supercaps in lowsec. With the coming of the jump freighter, motherships have ABSOLUTELY no reason to be there. Let the lowsec fights play out between the carriers and dreads. Supercaps have no business there.
Fourth, change fighters. Lower the mineral requirements for construction (and subsequently, the price), and make them moderately easier to kill to give players caught in a bad situation a fighting chance. (For those of you that have never done it, fighters CAN be killed...just so you know.) Also, change sentry gun priorities to primary fighters if the carrier pilot is the aggressor. If they break the rules, blow their toys out of space.
Fifth, overhaul the boats. Lack of capacitor is a severe limitation in the fleet support role, as well as recharge time thereof.
Sixth, a COMPLETE revamp of the triage system is in order. Can't say I know exactly what it does now, because none of the carrier pilots I know have ever even considered using it. That's a BIG problem. Let's start by making the carrier more defensive when it's engaged...through resist and self-repair bonuses, for instance. I'd also recommend throwing in a major cap regen bonus while in triage (to allow for the overdrive of remote repair arrays and the repair of the carrier itself, since once triage mode is activated, it will assuredly be the primary target on the grid.) A drastic decrease in lock time would also be in order while in triage to facilitate the repair and assistance of friendly pilots. Also while in triage, the limit on non-fighter drones will be lifted in regards to repair drones of all types. In fact, I would advocate the ability to release your total number of repair drones while in triage in addition to the combat fighters currently on the field, doubling the number of drones on the grid under the carrier/Mom's control. This would only be allowable in Triage Mode and only for non-combat drones. Triage would run off of strontium (just as siege mode does now), and the jump drive would be unavailable while in triage, and nosferatu, neutralizers, and smartbombs would be unusable while the module is active.
Whether or not CCP envisioned the carrier/mothership as a support vessel is irrelevant at this juncture...the implementation of that vision failed miserably, and pilots found ways to use it as it currently exists. A nerf or dumbing down of the carrier classes isn't the answer, just a revamp. "Capital Ship" in the current vernacular means two things; a massive vessel of raw destructive power, and a figurehead of a groups might. Capitals in Eve don't mean the same thing, and they should. Changes along the line I've proposed would leave everyone happier and better off. It would leave the pilots with decent firepower at their disposal (which a capital ship should have) as well as grant a large bag of new tricks, and it would put the carrier classes back where CCP feels they belong...anchored on the front lines leading the fight as a mobile battlestation for the glory of corp and alliance. Will it help with Need for Speed? Probably not, but it would set things to rights.
_____________________________________ I'm not a Pirate. I just have anger management issues.......and kleptomania. |
Verone
Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 10:14:00 -
[1223]
Edited by: Verone on 22/10/2007 10:14:16
Originally by: Ruffryder1167
why not get your own capitals to drop on their mothership when they bring it to a fight? You can trap an overconfident low sec mothership pilot who jumps into your small gang by turning the tables. Drop some dreads on it and start pounding away. Maybe a carrier or 2 in order to keep its cap down with neuts or transfer energy to the dreads?
Because not everyone loves to blob the crap out of people in order to win?
Because not everyone wants to have to hold 0.0 space to be able to be effective in combat?
Because not everyone has the ability to hide behind the numbers of their alliance in 0.0 while they grind isk to build capitals?
Because not everyone sees dropping capitals on people regardless of gang numbers in a smalle engagement as actually and enjoyable thing?
Maybe because capitals are a problem for people who enjoy small gang pvp and would rather have a fight than a slideshow of redsquare hits bluesquare doing 1100.1 damage?
Because some people play the game for fun, not as a religion and would rather have a good fight, even if they do end up losing it?
>>> TRIBUTE TO A FALLEN WINGMAN <<<
|
Quixess
Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 10:15:00 -
[1224]
Originally by: CCP Eris Discordia Verone gets a cookie
Also it would help if people could try to look passed their own bias when they reply with constructive criticism.
Takk
PS for the right bribe I can slap, kick or throw stuff at him because he sits right beside me
Look passed their own bias??? With a post like that, it seems you have already decided to make this change, irrespective of the 98% against it.
Why did you lot even bother telling us? Just go ahead and make the change already.
|
gordon cain
Minmatar x13
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 10:17:00 -
[1225]
@ Verone
I also hear people whining about people whining atm.
If you get hotdropped by carrier/mom squad why not counter that. Thats also the main thing wrong here. People dont have the imagination to counter stuff like this atm.
Few dreads, few carrier and a little EW on most ships and you can lock down an incomming hot-drop without problems.
Fact is that all corps that wants to do something important in Eve has to have a solid capital base. Otherwise you are just stuck while competitors is running by you.
If this Nerf comes (and I hope to Eve God it doesnt) then it will be the end of 20man corps and below. Sure we can still roame and kill a little, but as soon as something bigger (POS/Caps) needs to be killed we have to run.
Gordon Cain
"Allways remember. Never argue with idiots, they will just drag you down to their level, and beat you with experience" |
Yaay
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 10:17:00 -
[1226]
Edited by: Yaay on 22/10/2007 10:23:13
Originally by: Verone Edited by: Verone on 22/10/2007 10:14:16
Originally by: Ruffryder1167
why not get your own capitals to drop on their mothership when they bring it to a fight? You can trap an overconfident low sec mothership pilot who jumps into your small gang by turning the tables. Drop some dreads on it and start pounding away. Maybe a carrier or 2 in order to keep its cap down with neuts or transfer energy to the dreads?
Because not everyone loves to blob the crap out of people in order to win?
Because not everyone wants to have to hold 0.0 space to be able to be effective in combat?
Because not everyone has the ability to hide behind the numbers of their alliance in 0.0 while they grind isk to build capitals?
Because not everyone sees dropping capitals on people regardless of gang numbers in a smalle engagement as actually and enjoyable thing?
Maybe because capitals are a problem for people who enjoy small gang pvp and would rather have a fight than a slideshow of redsquare hits bluesquare doing 1100.1 damage?
Because some people play the game for fun, not as a religion and would rather have a good fight, even if they do end up losing it?
Maybe you're just fighting the wrong people, maybe your just not fighting them properly. So if carriers get nerfed into existance, you think that blob is going away... what's to keep the same people from pounceing you with 50 hacs, or 50 bs, or 50 frigs, Different story, same results.
It's like kids and discipline... kid does something wrong, you spank him. If you just run away from the problem, it get's worse because they know they can get away with things.
If someone drops a fleet of carriers on me, I go smack their carriers around until they get the point. Eventually, they figure out that maybe it's not such a good idea.
|
Deacon Ix
Ascendant Strategies Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 10:20:00 -
[1227]
Originally by: CCP Eris Discordia Verone gets a cookie
Also it would help if people could try to look passed their own bias when they reply with constructive criticism.
Takk
PS for the right bribe I can slap, kick or throw stuff at him because he sits right beside me
Thankyou, I can see why a change is being considered thanks to Verones post but what concerns me is that is took one of the playerbase to explain it after 47 pages on the subject.
Yes in that one specific type of incident, and I'm not saying it is a rare occurance, carriers and moms are being used outside of their desired roles, but I feel that the Proposed change, whilst dealing with the afore mentioned problem, raises too many issues in other areas.
If this change is passed the carriers need to be seriously buffed in other areas, ATM they are far to vunerable to EWar and the triage module is a farce.#
Making Carriers a fleet hub would be cool and I would probably enjoy flying my carrier in such a role.
But Please, when considering a change like this explain it fully and when 'nerfing' something to change its role a corresponding 'buff' also needs to be published.
In a situation where ppl are volunteering a Carrot works alot better than a stick
Originally by: Steini OFSI The most efficient way to get a dev response is to have the word beer somewhere in your thread.
|
Salient Soldier
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 10:20:00 -
[1228]
Originally by: Verone Edited by: Verone on 22/10/2007 10:14:16
Because not everyone loves to blob the crap out of people in order to win?
Because not everyone wants to have to hold 0.0 space to be able to be effective in combat?
Because not everyone has the ability to hide behind the numbers of their alliance in 0.0 while they grind isk to build capitals?
Because not everyone sees dropping capitals on people regardless of gang numbers in a smalle engagement as actually and enjoyable thing?
Maybe because capitals are a problem for people who enjoy small gang pvp and would rather have a fight than a slideshow of redsquare hits bluesquare doing 1100.1 damage?
Because some people play the game for fun, not as a religion and would rather have a good fight, even if they do end up losing it?
There's a place for this, and its name is Syndicate. Besides, the true way to get around carriers is mobility. Speaking of which... lets nerf all nano ships...
|
CopyCatz
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 10:22:00 -
[1229]
Originally by: CCP Eris Discordia Verone gets a cookie
Also it would help if people could try to look passed their own bias when they reply with constructive criticism.
Constructive criticism on what? All I know is that ZuluBrain isn't happy about the way things are now. I still havent seen an explanation what that means exactly?
|
Tanaka Nari
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 10:23:00 -
[1230]
Well... I haven't read all 48 pages, but my 2 cents are this (in case Zulupark reads this far).
I use a carrier in low sec for lvl 5 missions in groups and for small scale PVP. I have to say, I agree with the vision CCP seems to have for carriers: big effing logistics. I rarely deploy fighters, because seriously, they don't hit that well, and you lose them all to often to stupid things like a disconnect at the wrong time.
If people actually took the time to train for triage (yes, Logistics 5 is a deterrant), they would notice that targeting people quickly is actually possible with a sig resolution bonus of 900%. This is probably not true with gangs of 20+ sniping at each other for 1-2 volley death, no one can target/activate fast enough in such a situation.
Something that might improve the logistics role a bit would be to allow carriers to have a set of targets locked, and if one of them calls for assistance via broadcast, a corresponding module is insta-activated on them (if it is available and has cap). This at least reduces the activation delay. Maybe restrict this to triage mode.
Speaking of triage, if carriers are gimped regarding controlling their own fighters (maybe even limited to 0 own control), could then the 100% fighter control penalty inflicted by triage be reduced/removed?
|
|
Klorn Sorn
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 10:25:00 -
[1231]
It seems to me that this change is not accepted by a good part of the Eve members. Maybe back to the drawing board is inn order.
|
MindBender
Evolution Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 10:29:00 -
[1232]
Edited by: MindBender on 22/10/2007 10:29:41 Alright, well... I have to say now after reading through some of the posts on this thread there are some good ideas. But I feel that all the work I just put into training one of my alts for Carriers is going to waste. See, this is my first impression, and with that... it means everything.
You look at a Carrier now, on occasion it is used in large scare fleet battles and the do well, but their fighters get eaten up normally. This is a 1Bil ship when fitted, sometimes even more. Now like said before, a group of HACs of equal value could kill the carrier, and maybe take some losses. Also a group of 5 Battleships that are setup to kill the carrier, probably could also kill it by tanking the drones, killing them and then killing the carrier.
Now two threads that I really enjoyed reading were these two:
Post #28
Post #1029
In particular the on that comments about Logistics. Logistics is near impossible in EVE due to the way the UI is handled. It's hard to see when someone needs it, and locking up your teammates takes forever and normally if there is lag, you still have to wait to lock and they are dead before you can do anything. How do I know this, my alt is a dedicated Logistics Pilot, also the one I was hoping to get into a Carrier for Logistics purposes, well... Now I will end up using it as a POS Fueler, Repper, and general dust collector because the "Fight" it had, won't exist.
All in all, my first impressions are not looking good on this one. To me, you made way too many changes to this ship, and you don't even understand what you want for it. If it's suppose to be a Logistics Ship, MAKE IT ONE. Don't keep screwing with it's capabilities for Fighters/Drones. (Which will only give the Carrier Pilots more headaches as the way to manage drones, is also horrible)
|
Jin Entres
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 10:31:00 -
[1233]
Verone, I think you are misrepresenting the issue. Blobbing and dropping superior numbers on top of a gang is not an exclusively capital phenomenon. It has always existed (and will continue to exist). The difference is, your battleship gang is to them as a cruiser gang is to you. The gap is a bit bigger tankwise, but so are the skills and resources required. Furthermore, to come out on top in such an engagement economically, you need only kill some fighters.
Even if a case could be made that carriers are "too good", it would not be their damage output that is the issue. It's because you can't break their tanks without enough firepower.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but to me your case appears to be based on a biased position of limited resources and negative personal experiences.
---
|
Aenis Veros
Caldari Alphaflight
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 10:31:00 -
[1234]
Originally by: Verone
I'm laughing as I read this... for one reason.
I look at this thread, and I see the same people who feel the need to drop a mothership on a perfectly good 5vs5 engagement whining because this is going to "destroy the game", and whining that "small gang PvP" is dead.
Yeah, it's dead because people who have the ISK to field supercapitals, or multiple capitals, can totally wreck an enjoyable small gang engagement by dropping 100 billion tonnes of mothership on their opponent's face to ensure they have no way of losing.
I mean come on... you PROMOTED this changes by dropping carriers and motherships on people's faces at every opportunity you had, and now you're crying because it's getting looked at.
Personally, my corp has an unwritten list of people that we typically walk away from engagements with, purely based on the fact that all they ever do is drop capitals on us, regardless or not if we're outnumbered. More often than not these are supercapitals.
It's interesting to see that just about everyone on that list is here, whining about the changes. Changes might I add that will probably promote more small gang, and not capital pvp because of the reduced risk of having a group of caps dropped on your face.
GJ CCP! We have heavy interdictors to tackle moms coming now... All you need to do further is remove supercaps from lowsec completely, and approve these changes to head to TQ and this is a step in the right direction.
I think you are dodging the issue here by saying that carriers have ruined small gang PvP. Well, maybe it is so in your experience - and maybe carriers now pose a larger threat than they did, say twelve months ago. But will this be fixed with this NERF (which I think is uncalled for)? I very much doubt it.
Also, the fact that any style of gameplay can be ruined by another is a given component of EVE. "Oh, we wanted a close quarters max dps slugfest, and someone dropped a nano-gang on us!", or "Oh, we wanted a clean fight, and someone dropped a FOTM damp-fest on us", etc. - you know very well that the desire to have one kind of fight is quite oftenly just an idealists dream. Reality is that opponents don't play on your terms, and why should they?
Also, small gang PvP is getting less and less of an option because an ever increasing EVE-population leads to people liking having a bunch of friends about when they fight. Then someone calls them a BLOB, and instead we hear "Well, we wanted a small fight and they dropped a BLOB on us".
This reasoning can go on forever about many things. Beggars can't be choosers.
I dunno how you deduce having less carriers would lead to more small-gang warfare. Carriers are very static in their use, as they need a cyno, and need to be deployed in a single system. Roaming gangs usually can dodge that pretty easily. And redeploying carriers in a new system to follow a roaming gang is borderline useless.
If your enemy refuses to fight without carrier support, then that's your problem right there. No changes to game mechanics will change the fact that some players are "overly cautious" about things (eg. cowards).
Carriers aren't the solopwnmobiles some give them credit for either, they die just fine with a well coordinated attack. And killing your enemies carriers a couple of times make significant impact on many foes.
|
Verone
Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 10:31:00 -
[1235]
Originally by: gordon cain If you get hotdropped by carrier/mom squad why not counter that.
we do... we walk away.
We can't front motherships, and we front limited capitals.
When you guys killed a mothership in lowsec, you had to front two of your own along with several other capitals to take it down.
For a smaller corporation, there's no way at present to counter it other thank walking away.
And the funny thing is that more and more people are simply dropping blobs of capitals, or a supercap on smaller corporations in lowsec and the fringe areas of 0.0 purely because of the fact they'd rather win an engagement that have a fight they'll remember.
>>> TRIBUTE TO A FALLEN WINGMAN <<<
|
James Duar
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 10:31:00 -
[1236]
Quoted from Game Development because I feel it much more accurately addresses the lag issues related to fighter/drone amounts.
Originally by: James Duar The most straight forward answer to lag from drones in a "drone number" sense is to change drones into "drone squadrons" and cap every ship at 5 squadrons maximum.
On small ships, nothing changes - you have 1 drone per squadron.
On carriers however you might have anywhere from 1 to 5 fighters per squadron. Motherships would be defined as fielding squadrons with more fighters in them then motherships.
This neatly ensures that every ship is only launching a maximum of 5 additional entities, while retaining the versatility and DPS of carriers and motherships as the currently stand.
|
Ramlir
0.0 Corp
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 10:32:00 -
[1237]
Originally by: Quixess
Look passed their own bias??? With a post like that, it seems you have already decided to make this change, irrespective of the 98% against it.
Why did you lot even bother telling us? Just go ahead and make the change already.
His/her point was that your 98% is out of pool consisting of 100% of carrier pilots.
Good job CCP on the well-deserved nerf.
|
Clamn8er
Refuge of the Damned
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 10:33:00 -
[1238]
Originally by: CCP Eris Discordia Verone gets a cookie
Also it would help if people could try to look passed their own bias when they reply with constructive criticism.
Verone gets a cookie, eh??
No bias, right...
Constructive comments, right ....
http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/9961/omertasp2.jpg Sig removed. Lacks EvE related content. -Conuion Meow ([email protected])
|
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar MASS HOMICIDE Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 10:33:00 -
[1239]
Originally by: oniplE
Originally by: CCP Eris Discordia Also it would help if people could try to look passed their own bias when they reply with constructive criticism.
So because 99.5% of all replies here are against this change, it must be because they are biased? Come on..
maybe because its obviosu that 90% of those negative answeres are form carrier and MS pilots that like to do exaclty what CCP want to prevent beign done? its not exaclty liek CCP expected any other type of answere form those people.
I got an alt few monhts ago just to play with capitals, because today this is CApital Online. Bought the books and even so I am VERY happy that capital online will die and don 't care for the time and isk I placed on it, because i Want fun on this game, adn capital online ruins all the fun.
If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough |
Yaay
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 10:34:00 -
[1240]
Staying just with the Idea itself and on no other merits, the biggest letdown is that you don't understand it's not a player's nature to want to give up his firepower to someone else to be effective, especially when it's his money in someone else's control, it's his fun in someone else's control.
I think it's very funny that you keep pumping this whole logistics idea when 99% of the reason carriers even bring along a remote repairer is to save other carriers. Remove the dang thing and OMFG, CARRIERS AREN'T SO TOUGH TO KILL ANYMORE.
|
|
Verone
Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 10:36:00 -
[1241]
Originally by: Aenis Veros
I think you are dodging the issue here by saying that carriers have ruined small gang PvP.
Not at all. Carriers have made small gang PvP a lot more versatile and have made for better engagements on the whole, however it's gotten to the point where every man and his dog has them, and drops several on a perfectly acceptable engagement just for the hell of it.
It's this that's the issue, not the 0.0 alliance slideshows.
The carriers/motherships in 0.0 alliance slideshow engagements have the support to delegate fighters to people. So effectively people just need to be able to use them well.
In small gang pvp it's going to mean that a gang leader thinks "is it worth jumping a carrier in, do i have enough people to use my DPS? do i have enough people there as support?"
More often than not, the answer will be no... and there'll be a good engagement without capital blobbing because of it.
>>> TRIBUTE TO A FALLEN WINGMAN <<<
|
Max Teranous
Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 10:36:00 -
[1242]
Originally by: Verone
Originally by: gordon cain If you get hotdropped by carrier/mom squad why not counter that.
we do... we walk away.
We can't front motherships, and we front limited capitals.
When you guys killed a mothership in lowsec, you had to front two of your own along with several other capitals to take it down.
For a smaller corporation, there's no way at present to counter it other thank walking away.
And the funny thing is that more and more people are simply dropping blobs of capitals, or a supercap on smaller corporations in lowsec and the fringe areas of 0.0 purely because of the fact they'd rather win an engagement that have a fight they'll remember.
We can't front Battleships, and we front limited cruisers.
When you guys killed a battleship in lowsec, you had to front two of your own along with several other cruisers to take it down.
For a smaller corporation, there's no way at present to counter it other thank walking away.
And the funny thing is that more and more people are simply dropping blobs of crusiers, or a battleship on smaller corporations in lowsec and the fringe areas of 0.0 purely because of the fact they'd rather win an engagement that have a fight they'll remember.
See what i did there ?
Max
--------------------
|
Rusty PwnStar
Rampage Eternal Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 10:37:00 -
[1243]
Originally by: CCP Eris Discordia Verone gets a cookie
Also it would help if people could try to look passed their own bias when they reply with constructive criticism.
Takk
PS for the right bribe I can slap, kick or throw stuff at him because he sits right beside me
What? Because Verone make such a none bias argument?
One thing that can point to making this change a bad move, is the triage module. That alone, proves the argument. No one uses it, due to being a sitting duck and unable to use your drones.
What about the other question I raised. The fact that, just logging into EvE in a MS will put you at risk with this change. Does it mean that everytime I wish to change a skill, I have to gather all my corp mates to support me? So I'll be a sitting duck, without any chance of defence?
Regards Rusty |
Aenis Veros
Caldari Alphaflight
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 10:38:00 -
[1244]
Originally by: Verone
we do... we walk away.
We can't front motherships, and we front limited capitals.
When you guys killed a mothership in lowsec, you had to front two of your own along with several other capitals to take it down.
For a smaller corporation, there's no way at present to counter it other thank walking away.
And the funny thing is that more and more people are simply dropping blobs of capitals, or a supercap on smaller corporations in lowsec and the fringe areas of 0.0 purely because of the fact they'd rather win an engagement that have a fight they'll remember.
How is this dissimilar to if you would've faced say 40 hostile battleships? There are many scenarios in which a smaller corp. cannot do anything besides walking away. Does that mean that the solution is nerfing that? Hardly.
Don't try to attack a M1A1 Abrams in a Volvo using a pea shooter and complain about how it's not fair that they're so much better. You tend to sound like the carebears that whine about pirates... "zOMg! It's not FaiR!11one".
|
Deacon Ix
Ascendant Strategies Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 10:38:00 -
[1245]
Originally by: Kagura Nikon
Originally by: oniplE
Originally by: CCP Eris Discordia Also it would help if people could try to look passed their own bias when they reply with constructive criticism.
So because 99.5% of all replies here are against this change, it must be because they are biased? Come on..
maybe because its obviosu that 90% of those negative answeres are form carrier and MS pilots that like to do exaclty what CCP want to prevent beign done? its not exaclty liek CCP expected any other type of answere form those people.
I got an alt few monhts ago just to play with capitals, because today this is CApital Online. Bought the books and even so I am VERY happy that capital online will die and don 't care for the time and isk I placed on it, because i Want fun on this game, adn capital online ruins all the fun.
Read this and then Read your sig, I loled
Originally by: Steini OFSI The most efficient way to get a dev response is to have the word beer somewhere in your thread.
|
Icome4u
Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 10:39:00 -
[1246]
Edited by: Icome4u on 22/10/2007 10:41:04 Most of the posts that say no nerf are actualy pretty constructive. No need for 2 pages long constructive posts. People are direct to the point. (We are doing your job atm CCP. You amazed a lot of people with the stupidity of this idea and raised concerns about the future of this game if their's any...)
So NO to this bias idea, and no to Verone's childish comments.
'We don't have enough firepower so nerf MS!' lol i hope it's not VETO you are representing here.
So glad to see another CCP dev that should get his/hers work contract re-evaluated.
This sig demonstrate the problem is not drones or fighters but the amount of people show up to blobs and fleets. |
Clamn8er
Refuge of the Damned
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 10:39:00 -
[1247]
.. And if you want constructive, read Post 1441.
[i've no idea how to link, sorry!]
|
gordon cain
Minmatar x13
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 10:40:00 -
[1248]
Originally by: Verone
Originally by: gordon cain If you get hotdropped by carrier/mom squad why not counter that.
we do... we walk away.
We can't front motherships, and we front limited capitals.
When you guys killed a mothership in lowsec, you had to front two of your own along with several other capitals to take it down.
For a smaller corporation, there's no way at present to counter it other thank walking away.
And the funny thing is that more and more people are simply dropping blobs of capitals, or a supercap on smaller corporations in lowsec and the fringe areas of 0.0 purely because of the fact they'd rather win an engagement that have a fight they'll remember.
We are 15 members active at the best of our hour. So we realy on our heavy hitters to give us the small advantage that the damage output can give us.
We would have killed that MS if we mustered carriers only.
But I hear what you say also. The thing is we deceided already from the start of carriers and dreads that this should be the way forward and stuck to it ever since. Lately this payed off.
but...
regarding the counter to hot-drop is to walk away we have noticed also. We get fewer fights etc. But we live with it and bait people even further. Nothing else for us to do.
To be honest this nerf will trash most of our tactics but Im sure we will find a way to overcome this.
Gordon Cain
PS Work know so can only reply later if needed.
"Allways remember. Never argue with idiots, they will just drag you down to their level, and beat you with experience" |
Yaay
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 10:42:00 -
[1249]
Originally by: Verone
Originally by: Aenis Veros
I think you are dodging the issue here by saying that carriers have ruined small gang PvP.
Not at all. Carriers have made small gang PvP a lot more versatile and have made for better engagements on the whole, however it's gotten to the point where every man and his dog has them, and drops several on a perfectly acceptable engagement just for the hell of it.
Verone, how does this change at all help that problem. Beyond making them undesirable so that nobody flys them, it doesn't. That begs the question of why did i invest, or train for so long for something not worth flying.
The problem with everyone having them is that the economy in the game is fubar. People make money too fast, to easy. 3 years ago, 1 billion isk was godly, now it's a drop in the bucket. To add to that mess, people who fly in fleets insure ships to avoid as much loss of cash as possible, which not only helps the save money for the next round, it also adds isk to the game in ever growing amounts. Every fleet fight, every new player added to the server that adds to ship loss totals for the day inflates the economy even more.
Kill insurance, and risk goes up. Prices go up rather than down, gear becomes harder to find. Ship become harder to replace, and omg, not used so freely and carelessly like they currently are.
|
Verone
Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 10:45:00 -
[1250]
Originally by: Max Teranous
Attempt at whit.
See what i did there ?
Yeah, and it still didn't work.
changing the words slightly doesn't take the problem away. They problem that the sheer damage needed to take down a supercapital is in no sense even remotely comparable to a battleship, even for a small corporation.
>>> TRIBUTE TO A FALLEN WINGMAN <<<
|
|
Jarne
Increasing Success by Lowering Expectations Free Trade Zone.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 10:45:00 -
[1251]
I have the impression the problem for this "Capital Online" thing is the following:
One player can field one ship. That means, a fleet is stronger if their players field stronger ships. If they have the skills, and the money, it's not really a problem currently for them to field the "strongest" existing ship (let's say these are carriers for the normal player base), to make the fleet the strongest possible. As a result, we have big capital fleets and "Capital Online".
What CCP is trying to do now is kind of a change to that one-player-one-ship thing (which translates to one-player-one-carrier in Capital Online. The goal of the change is to reduce that to let's say 5-players-one-carrier (one carrier plus support with fighters delegated).
I feel, however, that it CCP should instead try to lower the incentive to always take the strongest ship a player can field. The only way to lower the incentive is in my opionion to lower the insurance payout for larger/stronger ships. And this should not only apply for carriers, but for all ships. Let's say you have each ship has an estimated strength (in some arbitrary measure) of X. Then the insurance payout of ships should not grow linearly with their strength, but for example logarithmically. The insurance payout would then be something like log(X). Currently, the "insurance payout function" is very discontinous (there's a break from T1 to T2 and from carriers to motherships/titans).
The "insurance payout function" should be approximately linear for small ships, and then saturate when ships get stronger...
Anyway, kind of off-topic here. Back to topic I actually like the changes proposed by Zulupark, but I also understand the concerns with fighter delegating carriers only sitting at a POS, bored to death. - Success=Achievements/Expectations
|
Onnawa
Minmatar Alcohol Fueled Brutality Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 10:46:00 -
[1252]
I can see eye to eye with Varone...I've been in his shoes. Catching the heavy end of the hammer on a hot-drop ruins a perfectly good night of flying around looking for a good scrap and a quick ride home in a pod. As for the argument of a cap-drop of your own, a lot of smaller corps don't have or don't like using that option. Corps like Veto and AFU tend to look at our capitals as weapons of Mutually Assured Destruction...when you commit them, you go all the way. As with nuclear weapons, capitals "take the fun out of it". We don't fly hoping to kill capitals...we fly to test our skills against others. Whether we win or lose is irrelevant...we do it for the thrill of battle, and to prove we're better than the opposition. That's the reason we pirate, and that's the reason we play as we do. Capitals take the wind right out of the sails of the small corps and gangs who go out looking for the thrill of the fight...gank or be ganked. Finding a capital in your territory used to be a cause foe celebration; you called everyone you knew around the area for the thrill of the kill, much akin to cavemen bringing down a mammoth. The hot-drop has gotten out of hand, and something needs done about it. By definition "Capital" means it isn't an "every fight every time" ship. They need restored to their proper place as the linchpin of a fleet or gang (and I'm sure Varone will back me up here.) I find more cynos on combat ship wrecks in lowsec now than I do sensor damps, and that's very indicative of a growing problem.
_____________________________________ I'm not a Pirate. I just have anger management issues.......and kleptomania. |
Icome4u
Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 10:46:00 -
[1253]
Edited by: Icome4u on 22/10/2007 10:50:45 If the enemy drops a couple carrier on you, do the same. If you can't then you DON'T deserve to win. Same deal with ANY other ship... they bring in 10 frigs, well bring in 10 and 5 cruisers. They got 20 BS, well bring 5 carrier and 10 BS. Or just bring in 30 BS. If anything carriers help people bring less people.
This idiotic nerf will cause more lag since we need to bring more people to support the carrier. Not to mention it won't be fun to use a carrier or MS anymore... yeah CCP this game is suppose to be FUN so stop making it dull and un-fun to play...
This thread is full of people who whine b/c they don't have the skill/isk/numbers to beat capital ships. Well to bad for you... why should we get nerf because of your incompetence?? Maybe for Formula 1 races the guy in the VIAGRA F1 should ask the Ferrari F1 to slow down because his race car can't keep up... lol wtf... You guys can always chose your fights better and if you can't keep up well move aside and let people who can keep up give a shot at killing the capital ships. Hey go hire MC, i heard they are looking for contracts!
This sig demonstrate the problem is not drones or fighters but the amount of people show up to blobs and fleets. |
Sin mez
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 10:50:00 -
[1254]
Originally by: CCP Eris Discordia Verone gets a cookie
Also it would help if people could try to look passed their own bias when they reply with constructive criticism.
Takk
PS for the right bribe I can slap, kick or throw stuff at him because he sits right beside me
Do you even play the game? And talking about bias like that when it's pretty obvious you're full of it is disgraceful. What are you thinking? Do you even understand your own playerbase, or for that matter your own game? If one would look at the dev comments without bias they would realize the devs have lost touch in a big way.
|
Icome4u
Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 10:52:00 -
[1255]
Originally by: Sin mez
Originally by: CCP Eris Discordia Verone gets a cookie
Also it would help if people could try to look passed their own bias when they reply with constructive criticism.
Takk
PS for the right bribe I can slap, kick or throw stuff at him because he sits right beside me
Do you even play the game? And talking about bias like that when it's pretty obvious you're full of it is disgraceful. What are you thinking? Do you even understand your own playerbase, or for that matter your own game? If one would look at the dev comments without bias they would realize the devs have lost touch in a big way.
/Signed. You just hit the thoughts of a couple thousand players!
This sig demonstrate the problem is not drones or fighters but the amount of people show up to blobs and fleets. |
Verone
Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 10:52:00 -
[1256]
Edited by: Verone on 22/10/2007 10:53:15
Forum ate my post
>>> TRIBUTE TO A FALLEN WINGMAN <<<
|
Cevin North
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 10:53:00 -
[1257]
okay, now i got a headacke but u still got me thinking (and got me scared with your first thoughts)
ive seen some posts in the last series that i like some i dislike, but im definetly not here to burn people down.
I think it might be an interesting idea to create the ability to fitup your fighters with guns, missles, lasers etc. This all depending on the skills the pilot has that flies the ship. This way you can cutdown the amount of fighters, if they can deal greater DPS per fighter and the carrier / mothership is still capable of defending itsself.
You can bet these little bastard figthers however will get sloughterd on the battlefield, so please make them cost as much as the equivalent (interceptor / assultfrig) sized ship that they can do DPS for.
This way you can keep a carrier / mothership defended VS a single battleship so that it eventualy has to warp off or call in the supports and you keep us as "support and assignment ships" happier than before.
I know this question might be a bit hard to realise, but just nerfing down the amount of fighters without giving anything back will seriously not make your playerbase happy.
I do think it might be a good idea to see the carriers with diffrently fitted fighters fly around, especialy if a fighter has like 3 highslots it can fit fighter modules in (no new skills please, use the ones we have) allowing us to fit a webber, warpscrambler, misslelauncher(-s) railguns and things like that in them.
If u take our cookies, we want something back too... u know....
|
Verone
Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 10:54:00 -
[1258]
Originally by: Yaay Verone, how does this change at all help that problem.
It removes the ability of the carrier pilot to think without his support in mind, and fighterbomb each target himself with an immense amount of DPS.
If these changes go in, a carrier will be the same for remote logistics. They fill this role very well in my opinion.
If the change goes in it will also mean that a carrier will need the support of a gang to utilise it's DPS rather than the gang just needing the support of the carrier to gank the living arse out of everything.
I can't see what the problem is for 0.0 alliances... you blob like hell... have fun with your slideshow engagements and calling primary and secondary... so it's not like you're unable to find the numbers to effectively delegate your fighters to gang members.
Nothing has changed here other than the need for people to use their brains a little more.
In the end a carrier or mom can still front the same DPS in 0.0 fleet warfare, it can still perform the same with remote logistics.
It just requires support to use it's DPS... something no 0.0 alliance gang is without.
The only change is that small gang leaders will have to think if it's worth it, or if they have adequate support to use a carrier's DPS in an engagement.
In most cases this will be no... and an engagement will ensue without everyone being cyno blobbed.
>>> TRIBUTE TO A FALLEN WINGMAN <<<
|
Aenis Veros
Caldari Alphaflight
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 10:55:00 -
[1259]
Originally by: Verone
Originally by: Aenis Veros
I think you are dodging the issue here by saying that carriers have ruined small gang PvP.
Not at all. Carriers have made small gang PvP a lot more versatile and have made for better engagements on the whole, however it's gotten to the point where every man and his dog has them, and drops several on a perfectly acceptable engagement just for the hell of it.
It's this that's the issue, not the 0.0 alliance slideshows.
The carriers/motherships in 0.0 alliance slideshow engagements have the support to delegate fighters to people. So effectively people just need to be able to use them well.
In small gang pvp it's going to mean that a gang leader thinks "is it worth jumping a carrier in, do i have enough people to use my DPS? do i have enough people there as support?"
More often than not, the answer will be no... and there'll be a good engagement without capital blobbing because of it.
Actually what you describe here (and illustrate quite well) is one of the major flaws of how CCP has operated lately in their "balancing" efforts.
Instead of working out a proper balance between mods, ships, etc. they've looked at usage of something at a large scale and effectivity for a specific purpose as an indicator that something needs to be nerfed.
Eg. it started with ECM, everyone used it - it got nerfed, NOS, everyone used it - it got nerfed, and next up is damps, and apparently carriers (etc.).
Now, if this reactionary behavior continues, where does this end really? I mean, it's natural that EVE develops, and more people eventually can (and will) fly larger and larger ships. Is that fact really an indicator that because more people CAN use capitals should mean that more usage = NERFBAT!
I strongly disagree.
Mods, ships, etc. should be balanced against eachother - as long as there is a proper counter for things, then it's fine. If you can't field ships to counter something, then work toward it. Grab some friends (diplomacy!) - and take out those capitals. I don't care how rich you are a fully fitted carrier stings in most player's wallets. Do it more than once, and that person is no longer flying a carrier.
|
Max Teranous
Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 10:57:00 -
[1260]
Originally by: Verone
Originally by: Max Teranous
Attempt at whit.
See what i did there ?
Yeah, and it still didn't work.
changing the words slightly doesn't take the problem away. They problem that the sheer damage needed to take down a supercapital is in no sense even remotely comparable to a battleship, even for a small corporation.
On the contrary, 5 frigs will most likely get mashed by a domi. They'll not break it's tank and it's neuts and drones will massacre them one at a time. Should a domi be reduced to using 1 or 2 drones to give those poor frigs a chance?
The simple fact is that pvp in eve in harsh and unfair. If I wanted nice fair fights i'd go play another game where you can't get ganked.
You're a pirate Verone. Do you not shoot a hauler flying past you while you are in a BS, because it would be "unfair" and "not a fun fight" ???
Max
--------------------
|
|
The Economist
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 10:58:00 -
[1261]
Summarised Ideas:
1. Scrap all changes proposed in the blog and apologise for the fact that anyone thought they were good ideas at all.
2. Nerf Capital Insurance.
3. Overhaul Triage. This module is your way to boost carriers' logistics capabilities without unnecessarily nerfing fighters and upsetting everyone, and without making them overshadow logistics ships (which just increasing things like base lock time/cap rep range etc on carriers would imo). It needs looking at anyway, you want to boost carrier logistics while limiting offensive capabilities so as not to un-balance things, it's a logistics reconfiguration module, it reduces the amount of fighters you can use....match made in heaven I'd say. What bout combining your idea with triage and boosting it by allowing fighter delegation but not direct control? Personally i've tried to think of ways to boost triage, but everything I think of tends to be overpowering in some way. Reduce the cap use too much and it's too good, allow it to be repper/transferred it could become too good etc, very tricky imo. GL
4. Overhaul drone UI (coming already I hear)
5. Fix the lag associated with drones. I know it's probably a complicated issue but it's one that really needs lots of attention. A while back you simply reduced the amount of drones we could field and boosted their effectiveness as a quick fix for drone lag. Well I think we're seeing that fix reach the limit of it's effectiveness. Now you could continue down the same path, which would logically over time end up with everyone fielding 1 drone, or re-work the code from the ground up. I would have thought that the upcoming big patch was the time to overhaul it. <---------- This is the no.1 most popular issue, not any of the problems you've just managed to invent and then try to fix in such a ham-fisted way.
6. Do something about MS in low sec. Personally I don't see this as a problem since they can still be killed, as has been demonstrated, however it would stop a lot of whining heh. Many suggestions elsewhere in this thread.
7. Reduce the docking range on gallente outposts so that carriers playing peek-a-boo outside don't effectively have a 60km+ invulnerability field around them
In terms of everything else....leave well alone. Carriers and MS are being used on the front lines (good); carriers and MS are dying left, right and center (good); solo carriers and MS are flying coffins (good); their firepower is, as has been stated many times already neither Godly nor tiny but just about right (good) while itself being vulnerable (good); carriers and ms are simple to counter if you know what you're doing (good); they don't make BS obsolete despite your concerns, just look at average fleet makeups, especially where capitals are involved (good); they aren't solopwnmobiles (good); they can choose between being on the front line, remote repping and comtrolling their fighters directly or sitting back in relative safety and delegating (choice = good); and I don't know wtf you're smoking but a MS cannot kill a BS in 0.2 seconds, obviously you were indulging in hyperbole, but even so....that's a ridiculous and unrealistic claim.
Seriously......don't fix what's not broken.....work on fixing what is....LIKE TRIAGE - the module which is designed to emphasise the "being able to keep other ships alive" part just as you're currently trying to do in a massively ham-fisted way.
This whole issue is demonstrating, in many people's eyes, a woeful lack of understanding of the way the game currently stands and of the large-scale ramifications of your proposed changes. The best course of action right now is to back-pedal, back-pedal as fast as you can, back-pedal like your lives depend on it, hell, back-pedal like you're being chased by Backdoor Bandit and the whole Minmatar *** Rights League.
[and of course do everything I suggest
Sig removed. Please keep sigs to 400x120 pixels and 24000 bytes in size or less. -Kaemonn |
Rusty PwnStar
Rampage Eternal Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 10:59:00 -
[1262]
Originally by: Max Teranous
On the contrary, 5 frigs will most likely get mashed by a domi. They'll not break it's tank and it's neuts and drones will massacre them one at a time. Should a domi be reduced to using 1 or 2 drones to give those poor frigs a chance?
The simple fact is that pvp in eve in harsh and unfair. If I wanted nice fair fights i'd go play another game where you can't get ganked.
You're a pirate Verone. Do you not shoot a hauler flying past you while you are in a BS, because it would be "unfair" and "not a fun fight" ???
Signed.
Just take alook at your own sig Verone, that says it all tbh.
Regards Rusty |
Aenis Veros
Caldari Alphaflight
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 10:59:00 -
[1263]
Originally by: CCP Eris Discordia Verone gets a cookie
Also it would help if people could try to look passed their own bias when they reply with constructive criticism.
Takk
PS for the right bribe I can slap, kick or throw stuff at him because he sits right beside me
Let's giggle and joke about the legitimate concern of the vast majority of the playerbase.
Smart.
|
Tobias Sjodin
Ore Mongers R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:00:00 -
[1264]
Originally by: Max Teranous
Originally by: Verone
Originally by: Max Teranous
Attempt at whit.
See what i did there ?
Yeah, and it still didn't work.
changing the words slightly doesn't take the problem away. They problem that the sheer damage needed to take down a supercapital is in no sense even remotely comparable to a battleship, even for a small corporation.
On the contrary, 5 frigs will most likely get mashed by a domi. They'll not break it's tank and it's neuts and drones will massacre them one at a time. Should a domi be reduced to using 1 or 2 drones to give those poor frigs a chance?
The simple fact is that pvp in eve in harsh and unfair. If I wanted nice fair fights i'd go play another game where you can't get ganked.
You're a pirate Verone. Do you not shoot a hauler flying past you while you are in a BS, because it would be "unfair" and "not a fun fight" ???
OMG. You are so right! Let's nerf the domi!
- Recruitment open again-
|
Icome4u
Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:02:00 -
[1265]
Edited by: Icome4u on 22/10/2007 11:03:24
Originally by: The Economist In terms of everything else....leave well alone. Carriers and MS are being used on the front lines (good); carriers and MS are dying left, right and center (good); solo carriers and MS are flying coffins (good); their firepower is, as has been stated many times already neither Godly nor tiny but just about right (good) while itself being vulnerable (good); carriers and ms are simple to counter if you know what you're doing (good); they don't make BS obsolete despite your concerns, just look at average fleet makeups, especially where capitals are involved (good); they aren't solopwnmobiles (good); they can choose between being on the front line, remote repping and comtrolling their fighters directly or sitting back in relative safety and delegating (choice = good); and I don't know wtf you're smoking but a MS cannot kill a BS in 0.2 seconds, obviously you were indulging in hyperbole, but even so....that's a ridiculous and unrealistic claim.
^^That
This sig demonstrate the problem is not drones or fighters but the amount of people show up to blobs and fleets. |
Verone
Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:03:00 -
[1266]
Originally by: Aenis Veros post
You're missing my point completely.
To be honest, I'm going to sit back and watch this thread.
It's clear to me that there is too much bias... and I admit my own is included there.
For the 0.0 alliances, it's the sheer laziness of not having to delegate fighters in large engagements and the want to win at all costs.
For the small gang combatants who actually want more of an enjoyable engagement than a slideshow and a cynoblob it's the fact they're sick of being carrier bombed at every opportunity even when outnumbered.
Like I said in my first post, it's hilarious that the same people we simply walk away from an engagement with are the ones whining about the changes in this thread.
To clarify... Veto Corp have carrier pilots, we use those carriers when we see fit to SUPPORT A GANG.
Personally, I think these changes are awesome, and I'm gonna get more of my guys into capitals if this comes along.
>>> TRIBUTE TO A FALLEN WINGMAN <<<
|
Max Teranous
Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:04:00 -
[1267]
Originally by: Tobias Sjodin OMG. You are so right! Let's nerf the domi!
I should STFU actually, i have a gallente combat alt
Max
--------------------
|
|
CCP Eris Discordia
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:04:00 -
[1268]
Originally by: Sin mez
Do you even play the game? And talking about bias like that when it's pretty obvious you're full of it is disgraceful. What are you thinking? Do you even understand your own playerbase, or for that matter your own game? If one would look at the dev comments without bias they would realize the devs have lost touch in a big way.
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.
Pink Dread has been hijacked
|
|
Callistus
Stimulus
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:06:00 -
[1269]
Originally by: Verone
I can't see what the problem is for 0.0 alliances... you blob like hell... have fun with your slideshow engagements and calling primary and secondary... so it's not like you're unable to find the numbers to effectively delegate your fighters to gang members.
But thats exactly the problem, its impossible to effectively delegate fighters in a large-scale, laggy slideshow engagement. --------
|
Icome4u
Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:07:00 -
[1270]
Originally by: Verone
Originally by: Aenis Veros post
You're missing my point completely.
To be honest, I'm going to sit back and watch this thread.
It's clear to me that there is too much bias... and I admit my own is included there.
For the 0.0 alliances, it's the sheer laziness of not having to delegate fighters in large engagements and the want to win at all costs.
For the small gang combatants who actually want more of an enjoyable engagement than a slideshow and a cynoblob it's the fact they're sick of being carrier bombed at every opportunity even when outnumbered.
Like I said in my first post, it's hilarious that the same people we simply walk away from an engagement with are the ones whining about the changes in this thread.
To clarify... Veto Corp have carrier pilots, we use those carriers when we see fit to SUPPORT A GANG.
Personally, I think these changes are awesome, and I'm gonna get more of my guys into capitals if this comes along.
I use my carriers to support my gang. Never flown it alone i don't want to die. I can say the same thing about 90% of the carrier/MS pilots i know. One MS pilot does use his to pirate in low sec, and i'm sure everyone knows what happen to him...
If you guys keep getting blobed by carriers, STOP PICKING FIGHTS WITH THOSE GUYS. Or simply bring your carriers/dreads. Again, if you can't LEAVE. No need to nerf an entire class of ships because you guys can't kill them w/o bringing the adequate ships/numbers!
EVE = New SWG i tell yah...
This sig demonstrate the problem is not drones or fighters but the amount of people show up to blobs and fleets. |
|
Clamn8er
Refuge of the Damned
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:08:00 -
[1271]
Originally by: Verone
Not at all. Carriers have made small gang PvP a lot more versatile and have made for better engagements on the whole.
...
The carriers/motherships in 0.0 alliance slideshow engagements have the support to delegate fighters to people. So effectively people just need to be able to use them well.
...
In small gang pvp it's going to mean that a gang leader thinks "is it worth jumping a carrier in, do i have enough people to use my DPS? do i have enough people there as support?"
More often than not, the answer will be no... and there'll be a good engagement without capital blobbing because of it.
Verone with due respect it seems like you are arguing both sides here.
The "small gang" pvp that you so much cherish, which you believe has been rendered "more versatile" by carriers will clearly lose its "versatility" if they are nerfed.
But of greater importance is that SMALL CORPS (I say again) WILL BE EXCLUDED from being able to use Capitals simply because we do not have the numbers, while big corps still maintain the ability to "drop" caps on you at will.
Now how is that going to boost small-gang pvp engagement???
Surely this is not your aim.
ONCE AGAIN, small corps are nerfed against the blobbers. Why is this the case?
The way we play, we are a small corp and you can bring all the capitals you want. If the numbers are small, we will try to take them down. if your numbers are overwhelming we will tactically withdraw.
And on occasion we will "drop" our own in on the party. Now why is CCP taking that away from us? ..
[oh and PS, if that is not "constructive criticism" mr. flaming discordia (curiously apt name you have chosen for yourself there) then maybe you can add to the debate a little more "constructively" and guide us by your light ] |
Arthin Mutin
Vigilantes Rubb
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:09:00 -
[1272]
Originally by: CCP Eris Discordia
Originally by: Sin mez
Do you even play the game? And talking about bias like that when it's pretty obvious you're full of it is disgraceful. What are you thinking? Do you even understand your own playerbase, or for that matter your own game? If one would look at the dev comments without bias they would realize the devs have lost touch in a big way.
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.
The only thing I utterly dittest about this idea is how unbalanced it is for the carriers that are jumping into the fight, were as the carriers already there would have all there fighters delegated the carriers jumping in will have to wait AGEs delegating fighters in that time there already dead to the other capitals, Also you complain about capital blobs with no support? there sitting ducks easy to kill, But thats how they want to play the game they pay to play, so why force them to have to form a fleet to just go have alittle fun?
|
Max Teranous
Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:09:00 -
[1273]
Edited by: Max Teranous on 22/10/2007 11:13:11
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.
A carrier solo is not a win button, it is an expensive target that will go down like a sack of **** to a gang. I know, that's how i lost one.
The only thing that need to be fixed from a game design point of view is there currently no mechanism to tackle a mothership in low sec. There should be. The bigger issue is lag and how all ships perform in it, but as already stated this proposed change is not for lag reasons.
Max
--------------------
|
Jin Entres
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:09:00 -
[1274]
Originally by: Verone
Nothing has changed here other than the need for people to use their brains a little more.
If you actually read the thread, you might have to concede that there are several practical implications for playing style, micromanaging issues with both lag and mechanics, loss of damage from skills etc.
You just came to this thread with a preconceived perception that fits your existing biased agenda, both ingame and out of it, bearing in mind that you're most likely sitting at CCP HQ at the moment. ---
|
Tetsujin
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:11:00 -
[1275]
fighter lag is sort of like the billboard code where no-one actually knows what's going on isn't it
|
DeadDuck
Amarr Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:11:00 -
[1276]
About 1 week ago we were hitting a pos with conventional fleet... a certain alliance cynoed in 6 Motherships and 26 carriers with minimal support... thats where the present status drove things in 0 space... Very nice indeed... we packed things and walk away, they packed things and walk away... lots of fun for bioth sides
|
Tobias Sjodin
Ore Mongers R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:11:00 -
[1277]
Edited by: Tobias Sjodin on 22/10/2007 11:11:39 Seems to me that small gang warfare would benefit from carrier support, especially when facing the famed "Blob".
There are many angles to view this from.
- Recruitment open again-
|
Icome4u
Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:11:00 -
[1278]
Originally by: CCP Eris Discordia
Originally by: Sin mez
Do you even play the game? And talking about bias like that when it's pretty obvious you're full of it is disgraceful. What are you thinking? Do you even understand your own playerbase, or for that matter your own game? If one would look at the dev comments without bias they would realize the devs have lost touch in a big way.
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.
Go through the 1300ish posts then. The post you made before made you look like a total ass.
You are stating you have been playing for a long time, but not been using capital ships, correct? Well try them out. You will see carriers and motherships are not 'I WIN' buttons, far far from it. Well actually... they are I WIN vs a BS just like a BS is I WIN vs a cruiser... The bigger better ship wins... i think thats normal right?
Their's a good 1300 posts saying no to this nerf, at least 50% of them are constructive. Have fun reading them, I HAVE and it's clear this is a bad idea from CCP.
This sig demonstrate the problem is not drones or fighters but the amount of people show up to blobs and fleets. |
Apocalytica Insomnia
DarkSide Defenders
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:12:00 -
[1279]
Originally by: CCP Eris Discordia PS for the right bribe I can slap, kick or throw stuff at him because he sits right beside me
First i was thinking about a stone, but then, the analogie would be ... unprudent. I rather lead by example and ask openly what type of bribe you'd concider for throwing blown up Carrier-wrecks at him, cause they could not effectively defend emselfes against 3 Neut-BS's, when beeing bumped in a staging system by said Neut-BS's before their Rescue Fleet could make it 8 Jumps.
Apocalytica Insomnia DarkSide Defenders Accounting and More |
Tzrailasa
Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:12:00 -
[1280]
Edited by: Tzrailasa on 22/10/2007 11:12:13 Zulupark, before presenting solutions, please provide us with the problem....
Your 'solution' would make carriers/mommies useless in fleet battles, and you haven even told us aht the problem is.
If the problems are some of the following, there are WAY better solutions.....
- Is the problem low-sec mommy gate campers? Easy, just prevent them from going there.
- Is the problem 'hot-drops'? Easy, make a 15 second delay on cynos, ie. they have to be up 15 seconds before they can be used.
- Is the problem blobbing? Sorry, but you created THIS problem yourselves! Shootable POS structures and station services ensured it. Add the fact that the ONLY counter to a blob is a bigger blob, and you have the mess that is fleet warfare now. Removing carriers from the game will not make this go away.
- Is the problem something else? Hey, I got an idea for you: TELL US!
At BEST, I think you're trying to remove a symptom of what's wrong (you should be removing the problem instead). At worst, I think you haven't got a clue about 0.0 warfare....
What needs to be fixed are not carriers, which work reasonably well in fleet, but a LOT of other issues. Among these are:
- There is NO anti-blob measures in the game (and no, bombs are completely useless). This leads to the blob-lag mess of todays fleet/POS warfare, which again leads to the lag-hell we see all the time now.
- POS warfare has always been a mess, but you tripled that when you implemented shootable structures and station services. The theory 'give small gangs something to do' was nice, but this was totally forgotten in the implementation which more or less mandates 100+ gangs. Of.c. you can't scale down the HP's as this would make it too easy.
Main advice for this one... ROLL IT BACK! Completely! - Triage is useless. Any carrier who uses it in a fleet battle will be primaried and die! Remove the 'lock-in-place' part of it, and have triage mode as a simple removal of offensive weapons for an increase in logistics capability. Being locked in place without being able to be remote repaired totally kills this module.
- Bombs are useless. They're too short-ranged, too low damage and with too many restrictions to work. Especially in lagged out fights they're utterly useless, but wasn't this where they were intended to be used?
The base of problems in 0.0 warfare is lag, and the cause of lag is blobbing. Blobbing is caused because it is required by many features that you've put in over the last couple of expansions, and is so easy to do since there are no countermeasures.
What you need to do is fix lag first! Unless you have a magic technology wand somewhere, the only way you can do that is by nerfing blobbing in some way. How to do this is a good question, with the best idea I've seen on these forums being some kind of (suicide) smartbomb that becomes more effective (range/damage) the more people are on grid (and we're talking up to 150km range and kill-battleship damage here if numbers are 100-150 or whatever).
AFTER lag is removed as a factor, THEN you can start on balancing stuff. Your idea may be fine in a lag-free environment, but in todays lag-blob-hell, the assignment of fighters would not work at all, and remote repping is not even an option for battleships and below (they're dead before you even get to START locking them up).
My views are my own. They do not represent the views of my corporation or alliance. |
|
Vampir3 Un3xist
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:14:00 -
[1281]
Thanks CCP im currently skilling carrier now with this nerf carrier are useless I have wasted my time
|
Tzrailasa
Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:16:00 -
[1282]
Originally by: CCP Eris Discordia .... and I am training up for capital ships....
So in essence, you're admitting you don't know BY EXPERIENCE what you're talking about???
This is the same complaint a lot of people here has about Zuluparks 'fix'. It simply doesn't make ANY sense to anyone who've tried to fight in the lagged out blob-hell that is todays 0.0 warfare experience.
Carriers didn't make this blob-hell.... CCP did by their design decisions....
My views are my own. They do not represent the views of my corporation or alliance. |
Gamesguy
Amarr D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:17:00 -
[1283]
Edited by: Gamesguy on 22/10/2007 11:18:01
Originally by: CCP Eris Discordia
Originally by: Sin mez
Do you even play the game? And talking about bias like that when it's pretty obvious you're full of it is disgraceful. What are you thinking? Do you even understand your own playerbase, or for that matter your own game? If one would look at the dev comments without bias they would realize the devs have lost touch in a big way.
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.
I'm sure people argued the samething about battleships when most were flying cruisers. Oh noes, the battleship blob will be the end of eve. Battleships will be solo pwnmobiles, etc.
How exactly do you propose carrier pilots accomplish this magical fighter delegation in today's environment of slideshow fleet engagements and extremely buggy fighter assignments?
And this would basically mean no one will ever hot drop carriers ever again, since you get grid loading lag and by the time you load half your support is dead and you got no one left to assign to.
While I'm sure all this plays out nice and dandy in your zero lag test server or zero lag small scale engagements. When you have a 100v100 what happens then?
|
Mr Funkadelic
Tenacious Danes Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:18:00 -
[1284]
Originally by: DeadDuck About 1 week ago we were hitting a pos with conventional fleet... a certain alliance cynoed in 6 Motherships and 26 carriers with minimal support... thats where the present status drove things in 0 space... Very nice indeed... we packed things and walk away, they packed things and walk away... lots of fun for bioth sides
And they spent atleast 50 times the amount of isk on ther fleet than you did - Why should they not be sucessful in defending the pos?
|
Tobias Sjodin
Ore Mongers R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:18:00 -
[1285]
Edited by: Tobias Sjodin on 22/10/2007 11:20:35 Edited by: Tobias Sjodin on 22/10/2007 11:18:31
Originally by: Tzrailasa *stuff*
Quote For Awesome Post.
CCP: "Ugh, this shiptype is overused and becoming a large scale nuisance, let's nerf it to hell so less people use it".
Why not just delete the skilltree and the ships entirely while you're at it and let those who trained the skills re-assign their SP?
- Recruitment open again-
|
Gamesguy
Amarr D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:20:00 -
[1286]
Originally by: Mr Funkadelic
Originally by: DeadDuck About 1 week ago we were hitting a pos with conventional fleet... a certain alliance cynoed in 6 Motherships and 26 carriers with minimal support... thats where the present status drove things in 0 space... Very nice indeed... we packed things and walk away, they packed things and walk away... lots of fun for bioth sides
And they spent atleast 50 times the amount of isk on ther fleet than you did - Why should they not be sucessful in defending the pos?
Exactly, Thats like complaining your "conventional fleet" of t1 cruisers got "blobbed" by a fleet of hacs and command ships and promptly pwned.
As for support, POS tend to make pretty good support when there is lag involved.
|
Icome4u
Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:20:00 -
[1287]
Originally by: Mr Funkadelic
Originally by: DeadDuck About 1 week ago we were hitting a pos with conventional fleet... a certain alliance cynoed in 6 Motherships and 26 carriers with minimal support... thats where the present status drove things in 0 space... Very nice indeed... we packed things and walk away, they packed things and walk away... lots of fun for bioth sides
And they spent atleast 50 times the amount of isk on ther fleet than you did - Why should they not be sucessful in defending the pos?
Way more than 50 times. But hey if they can't afford it, NERF IT!!! Damn noobs ruining this game...
This sig demonstrate the problem is not drones or fighters but the amount of people show up to blobs and fleets. |
Onnawa
Minmatar Alcohol Fueled Brutality Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:21:00 -
[1288]
Edited by: Onnawa on 22/10/2007 11:22:00
Quote:
On the contrary, 5 frigs will most likely get mashed by a domi. They'll not break it's tank and it's neuts and drones will massacre them one at a time. Should a domi be reduced to using 1 or 2 drones to give those poor frigs a chance?
The simple fact is that pvp in eve in harsh and unfair. If I wanted nice fair fights i'd go play another game where you can't get ganked.
You're a pirate Verone. Do you not shoot a hauler flying past you while you are in a BS, because it would be "unfair" and "not a fun fight" ???
He isn't saying that at all. What he's attempting to point out is the disparity between battleships and capitals. There's a huge power gap between the two classes. The jump between BS and Cap is the ONLY place in the ship chain where you can't solo the larger in the smaller if you have skill, innate ability, and testicular fortitude. It requires caps of your own, or a larger gang and a lot of time on your hands. While carriers don't have "Godly" firepower, it's a whole lot more than the vast majority of people are prepared to deal with in small-scale engagements. In that respect, it does solopwn, because a mixed gang of 5 or 6 can't kill fighters fast enough, and even if you manage to do so, he still has several hundred drones. You lose a whole flight because Johny Jerkoff has a fitted cyno. Try warping away from fighters sometime....you tacklers get out if you're lucky. I don't even bother anymore...I just ride it down and take as many fighters as I can with me.
And as for your other comment, no. You kill what you can, because that's what you do. And if a hauler pilot gives you time to lock him when you're in a battleship, he deserves to die.
And if you can't kill a domi with 5 frigates, you're flying with the wrong people.
_____________________________________ I'm not a Pirate. I just have anger management issues.......and kleptomania. |
gesthapto lapenty
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:23:00 -
[1289]
Worst potential Nerf I have seen yet in game. This would send us back to Carriers sitting next to POSes and giving fighters to those at battle - making them almost impossible to kill. Getting carriers into frontline combat should be what you are looking at.
Oh... and they should be "better at killing things than BS Ships" because they are carriers... and people have spent billions getting them trained and equipped.
And the same for more than 5 fighters or drones... THEY ARE CARRIERS
|
Emsigma
Contraband Inc. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:24:00 -
[1290]
After reading 50 pages of stuff, I can still not see the incentive anyone would have for this patch to be introduced nor can I see how it would benefit... well... any gameplay at all.
My biggest fear now is that the community is gonna accept the upcoming rework of a carrier/mom nerf and accept it just because it is relatively better than this creation from a friday afterwork joke.
We must remember that when this suggestions gets an overhaul and a new version is presented, we must look at it from an unbiased position. ---
|
|
Gamesguy
Amarr D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:24:00 -
[1291]
Originally by: CCP Eris Discordia
Originally by: Sin mez
Do you even play the game? And talking about bias like that when it's pretty obvious you're full of it is disgraceful. What are you thinking? Do you even understand your own playerbase, or for that matter your own game? If one would look at the dev comments without bias they would realize the devs have lost touch in a big way.
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.
The player population is quite capable of recognizing an imbalance. At the height of the cyno in DD cyno out doomsday craze every single titan pilot admitted that it was imbalanced, and suggested change. This happened with nosferatus, this happened with the nerfed nanophoon, this happened with ecm. We players KNOW when something is overpowered and needs nerfing, even if we're using the said overpowered item.
The fact that 99% of all carrier pilots are opposed to this should be a pretty big freaking hint that you devs have no clue wth we want and should step back and think that maybe a change that 99% of the pilots that actually fly them are opposed to isnt such a great idea.
|
The Economist
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:25:00 -
[1292]
Originally by: verone In the end a carrier or mom can still front the same DPS in 0.0 fleet warfare
Wrong. You only get your bonuses if you control your own fighters, so they will lose dps, not to mention the massive dmg loss from the whole having to delegate repeatedly during battle thing,(by which I mean during lag, since anything above a small fleet and lag becomes and exponentially increasing problem) and of course delegation isn't exactly helped by the fact that you can't see your fighters' health, the fact that the delegation ui is rather cumbersome, the fact that you can't tell who's in what ship without asking (gang chat scrolling with "x f 2/5" throughout a fight pretty much render gang chat useless) and the fact that all that's assuming you can't even right click (something barely possible when in a fight involving a decent amount of caps and support).
Of course all the lag inhibits the ability to act and hence the ability to project your damage. Add these changes to the current system and what do we get? More lag. More people will be needed to use the fighter effectively and as has been stated, will need to have deleagtion sorted before a fight, which means more drones in space. Personally we never deploy fighters/drones until the last possible second when there's targets on grid. Why? Because they lag the crap out of us too and adding more lag to a system before it's absolutely necessary would just be stupid.
In terms of this being a balance to small scale warfare; a small gang with a bit of ewar can disable a few carriers without much trouble and fighters can be killed, avoided and kited. If they can't be that probably means you're so outnumbered in all round ship types that you're screwed regardless and they would have enough people to delegate fighters to. The only small-scale pvp I can think of this really affecting is where you have a tiny roaming gang of a few ships, go into someone's home territory and they decide to just throw a couple of carriers at you to fend you off. Again, you can disable them if you're cunning (though prob not kill one due to remote repping/support being on the way) or you can ignore them. This paragraph is a little muddy point-wise and I'm not sure what I'm trying to say beyond the fact that I really don't understand what's broken that this fixes.
Oh and lol at eris implying that a carrier is in some way a win button (after stating that she doesn't even fly caps)
Win buttons don't tend to go boom quite so easily and frequently.
[CCP, you know it's not exactly constructive to post un-constructively in a thread full of angry and generally emo people saying "be constructive, <3 xyz, have a cookie, tee hee hee"? Just friendly advice.]
Sig removed. Please keep sigs to 400x120 pixels and 24000 bytes in size or less. -Kaemonn |
Finn Yr
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:26:00 -
[1293]
ok 51 pages now last time this happened (100 pages plus, true) the database crashed shortly thereafter (yeah, or whatever the stated reason was)
let¦s stop this now - enough has been said
CCP needs to find some other way to reduce lag and if that¦s not what they had in mind, then please let them be more clear in the future.
50+ pages of protest should be clear enough
F.
|
Snakebloke
Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:28:00 -
[1294]
Edited by: Snakebloke on 22/10/2007 11:32:04 Edited by: Snakebloke on 22/10/2007 11:30:29 Edited by: Snakebloke on 22/10/2007 11:29:10
Originally by: CCP Eris Discordia
Originally by: Sin mez
Do you even play the game? And talking about bias like that when it's pretty obvious you're full of it is disgraceful. What are you thinking? Do you even understand your own playerbase, or for that matter your own game? If one would look at the dev comments without bias they would realize the devs have lost touch in a big way.
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.
I don't feel it will achieve your goals for two reasons.
a) From my experience in 0.0, motherships and carriers assign fighters when they have the chance, and when they feel doing so will benefit gameplay and give our support fleet an advantage. However, if a change like is proposed were to be applied, the use of carriers and motherships will decrease rapidly because carriers and Moms could not jump into a system 'hot'. If a cyno goes up and a mom jumps in, the enemy fleet comes to them with 20 battleships and 2 dictors...."ooh thats unfortunate, i can only use 5 fighters to defend my 40billion isk ass, during this lag i will assign 5 fighters to 3 interceptors that have just arrived in system and...oh nm im dead". See what i mean? jumping in hot will become impossible which, unless a pos is erected, is necessary in fleet battles.
second point b) at the moment fighters are assigned to help DEFEND a system when it is known where an enemy is. To physically assign fighters during a LAGGY battle is death. Why is it laggy? Because more people have entered system than is necessary because CCP instigated a patch making Moms and carriers impotent.
This patch will not help lag it will make it worse, by concentrating more characters in one place at one time.
I feel i didnt explain that very well because im tired but basically, i have 3 accounts. If my main has a carrier or Mom that can use all the fighters..ill do so, with one account. However if i have a carrier/mom that requires i assign fighters...i WILL log onto my other 2 accounts. Of that i am certain.
I put it to you that this change WILL increase lag, not reduce it ------------------------
|
RazorCRO
Caldari The Arrow Project Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:29:00 -
[1295]
Originally by: CCP Eris Discordia
Originally by: Sin mez
Do you even play the game? And talking about bias like that when it's pretty obvious you're full of it is disgraceful. What are you thinking? Do you even understand your own playerbase, or for that matter your own game? If one would look at the dev comments without bias they would realize the devs have lost touch in a big way.
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.
Win button?? I dont have carrier neather i trained for it (hope i will some day) and i fight against em and with em as much as i can, and one thing is for shure.... carriera are NOT win button. They arnt even close to win button. do you ppl ever check killmails? Carriers get killed by small group of ships regulary.
Dont fix something that everyone is satified with. Fix lag, fix blobs, fix broken things...
|
Sin mez
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:30:00 -
[1296]
Edited by: Sin mez on 22/10/2007 11:29:53
Originally by: CCP Eris Discordia
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.
Please stop creating ideas based on a perfect world theoretical environment. Your (CCPs) idea of gameplay does not exist and neither does the impact you want your changes to have.
If CCP is not planning to admit their game is flawed at a fundamental level they are just as guilty as the playerbase in not wanting to take away their own win button. More and more it's starting to become obvious that the EVE of today is not the game CCP wish or think they are working with. |
Il Reverendo
Minmatar Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:32:00 -
[1297]
Originally by: Emsigma
My biggest fear now is that the community is gonna accept the upcoming rework of a carrier/mom nerf and accept it just because it is relatively better than this creation from a friday afterwork joke.
Likewise tbh.
|
Elliott Manchild
omen. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:32:00 -
[1298]
I just don't understand how people think carriers are win buttons. Get a t1 frig with 3 damps and you can get a carirers lock range down to 10k and have a stupid lock time. Ok ms cant be damped but you pay for that it costs 15x what a carrier does in just the build price.
|
DeadDuck
Amarr Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:33:00 -
[1299]
Originally by: Gamesguy
Originally by: Mr Funkadelic
Originally by: DeadDuck About 1 week ago we were hitting a pos with conventional fleet... a certain alliance cynoed in 6 Motherships and 26 carriers with minimal support... thats where the present status drove things in 0 space... Very nice indeed... we packed things and walk away, they packed things and walk away... lots of fun for bioth sides
And they spent atleast 50 times the amount of isk on ther fleet than you did - Why should they not be sucessful in defending the pos?
Exactly, Thats like complaining your "conventional fleet" of t1 cruisers got "blobbed" by a fleet of hacs and command ships and promptly pwned.
As for support, POS tend to make pretty good support when there is lag involved.
No just saying that we didnÆt engage our Capital fleet there cause we knew it could happen what happened.. Drop a entire cap fleet on top of our Capitals in siege mode.
ThaT fleet didnt have any support and was capable of fielding +400 fighter drones... Now imagine that we had engaged a fleet with similar magnitude. ThatÆs + 1000 drones fighting in a POS + hundreds of ships in system. Capitals Online turned into Lag Online... Dam great...
Then we could all post the usual "CCP FIX THE DAM GAME" BLA, BLA, BLA, BLA....
|
Il Reverendo
Minmatar Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:35:00 -
[1300]
Originally by: Elliott Manchild I just don't understand how people think carriers are win buttons. Get a t1 frig with 3 damps and you can get a carirers lock range down to 10k and have a stupid lock time. Ok ms cant be damped but you pay for that it costs 15x what a carrier does in just the build price.
Don't forget that with the new inty changes every noob and his brother will be able to perma-scram a carrier outside nos/neut/smartbomb range (only takes a tiny bit of speed to outrun warrior II's) for what 20mil max?
|
|
Nyack
GREY COUNCIL Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:36:00 -
[1301]
so we are back to carriers sitting at the edge of pos shields assigning fighters and pos gunners on standby if hostiles warp in and get lagged out..
carriers after ages finally actually used on the battlefield and now they are back to being a pos module...
|
Dionisius
Gallente Critical Analysis Te-Ka
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:36:00 -
[1302]
Originally by: CCP Eris Discordia
Originally by: Sin mez
(...)
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.
First, the carrier isn't and never was a I-Win button, back when i started playing around last year i was in a small pirate corp, the first time i ever saw a carrier, ginger's, instead of running away we decided on the spot we would fight him and for that we had,
- 1 2004 guy - Tempest - 1 2003 guy - Nighthawk - 3 early 2006 guys - Rapier/Prophecy/ Scorpion - 3 later 2006 guys - Taranis/Stilleto/Maller
8 Guys, and most of us newbies with no more than 1mil in our pockets and flying at best a t1 cruiser or a inty.
We fought for about 1 hour, lost some ships and in the end we didn't brought that carrier down but instead we had alot of fun.
Going foward we went into 0.0 space, The Horde at the time, we fought Insurgency, bs gangs, hacs, you name it, fun all the way, the only time i saw Dreads and Carriers then was in POS sieges and even so escorted by ALOT of bs and other support.
Talking of more than 200 or more vs other alliance fleets.
Now was that laggy, yes a bit, but lag came with Revs and the weird d-syncs.
Into 2007 we start seeing more cap pilots into the scene, and what do you get? The carrier in low-sec is more vulnerable as ever, lots of them fall at the hands of efficient and well organized gangs, but, lets look at eve videos and go back to the first carrier engagements, what do we see, yep more carriers down, take it back to these days what do you see, one corp brings down a Mothership, when all the voices screamed nerf it because its unstoppable, they showed it is possible.
Now my use of a carrier, and i'm still 90 days away from it, logistics and med/large fleet engagements. Now do i want to stay at a POS and assign fighters?, perhaps if the situation requires it but were do i rather use my carrier? Just that?Frontline?Just transporting stuff?
The answer to that question is where i see its fit to use the carrier.
You can best see the use of the carrier, combat wise, in the INFOD videos for instance, carriers droping fighters and mainly being used as repairing ships, supporting the main battleship fleet, lets not ilude people, the main combat ship still is the Battleship.
Now nerfing carriers that way what does that help?Nothing, instead of having i'll just bring 10 battleships more or even more carriers than previously and in battle the numbers will add to people:
a) Not fighting. b) Lagging to death in battle. c) Crash the node.
Where does that leave your "fix", in ruins, you just found another way to encourage blobage.
Verone complained of people droping Motherships on their small gang, fair enough, yet his small gang preys on the lone hauler or mission runner or ratter, so if the those people complain are you nerfing battleships too?Or intys?Or af's?Or cruisers?
And the other point is, if those same corps don't drop the hammer with MOM's, they will just use the next logical ship.. more and more Battleships, and instead of fielding 1 MoM against the 5 man gang, they will face the 10 or 20 or whatever is needed to win the engagement leaving you CCP and us players back at square one.
I've shared what little experience i have in 0.0 and lowsec, and i see nothing wrong with carriers as they are, more and more people much more experienced and old in game ate telling you the same, perhaps CCP should listen to them and not just at the people whining. _____________________________________ Hello, i like to shoot random people.
|
Lazuran
Gallente Time And ISK Sink Corporation
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:36:00 -
[1303]
So ... basically aside from the lag issue (which they don't want to admit?), CCP are also afraid of keeping the Carrier / Mothership as the natural upgrade path of the Battleship since this would mean that more and more people would have them and use them as "larger battleships".
This raises a few questions:
- what else should we do? wait for T2 battleships? pimp our battleships with faction gear (and get owned by the next 1 battleship + 1 recon gang)? leave the game after 7 months (which is still what CCP occasionally claim that the average player does)?
- don't people lose enough motherships and carriers already? it's not like a carrier is easy to replace (well it's easier if you let people sell GTCs as much as they like..), not to mention motherships with officer gear.
I don't think "Capitals Online" should be a problem, just like "Battleships Online" never was for the past 3 years. Just introduce even bigger ships - I hope your visionary plans for EVE can go further than Titans and T2 versions of everything?
isn't it funny how some people advocate both GTC<=>ISK trades and EVE being superior due to its cruelty and costly losses, when they use the former to circumvent the latter?
|
Callistus
Stimulus
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:39:00 -
[1304]
Edited by: Callistus on 22/10/2007 11:41:13
Originally by: DeadDuck
No just saying that we didnÆt engage our Capital fleet there cause we knew it could happen what happened.. Drop a entire cap fleet on top of our Capitals in siege mode.
ThaT fleet didnt have any support and was capable of fielding +400 fighter drones... Now imagine that we had engaged a fleet with similar magnitude. ThatÆs + 1000 drones fighting in a POS + hundreds of ships in system. Capitals Online turned into Lag Online... Dam great...
Then we could all post the usual "CCP FIX THE DAM GAME" BLA, BLA, BLA, BLA....
What's your point? With these changes the attacking fleet would just bring a load of extra support for fighter delegation, resulting in just as much lag as there'd be if you'd brought an equivalent fleet in the first example.
Everyone agrees we need less lag, but this change (and Zulupark has already stated it) has nothing to do with fixing lag, if anything it'll make the problem worse. --------
|
Albatron St
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:44:00 -
[1305]
why dont you just let us go back in to the pos shields like it was before ...as we are at it
Its a useless nerf it will just get us more cap blobs... carriers are fine as they are, if you can see that.... why woud anyone fly mom over the carrier whit your nerf? Why dont you make reping fighters if you wont us to rep stuff on battleground.
there is alot off stuff wrong whit devs post like saying : ^WE want - WE‘re a little concerned -WE plan^ its all about you isnt it, your make this game for you, so you can play it in your office right ccp ? What about what WE wont !!!!your making this game for us - after all we are paying you for it.
|
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar MASS HOMICIDE Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:46:00 -
[1306]
Originally by: Tzrailasa
Originally by: CCP Eris Discordia .... and I am training up for capital ships....
So in essence, you're admitting you don't know BY EXPERIENCE what you're talking about???
This is the same complaint a lot of people here has about Zuluparks 'fix'. It simply doesn't make ANY sense to anyone who've tried to fight in the lagged out blob-hell that is todays 0.0 warfare experience.
Carriers didn't make this blob-hell.... CCP did by their design decisions....
omg. The fact that someoen don fly a capital don make it un-eligible to have an important opinion on the subject. Why? Because there are two sides on this coin, the capital pilot and the guy being powned by capital pilots. If you have been in any of the 2 sides you have right to emit an opinion as good as anyone else!! In fact being on the under-sided side of the coin makes you eligible to a much more respectable opinion!
Grow up and realise the game it not only aboout you and your fellow elite capital pilots! You are a tiny minority of the player base. TINY!
If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough |
ER0X
Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:47:00 -
[1307]
Edited by: ER0X on 22/10/2007 11:51:15
Originally by: CCP Eris Discordia
Originally by: Sin mez
Do you even play the game? And talking about bias like that when it's pretty obvious you're full of it is disgraceful. What are you thinking? Do you even understand your own playerbase, or for that matter your own game? If one would look at the dev comments without bias they would realize the devs have lost touch in a big way.
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.
Hold on a second Eris. This is either badly written or I am correct in assuming it's tense. It appears to me to be based within the perspective that there is an on-going discussion between the development team and the community with regards to carriers and wither they are overpowered or not. To my knowledge there has been no discussion between the development team and the community of carriers being over powered. At least not before this blog was released.
From the Blog I determine that the development team are trying albeit too hard to create a dichotomy unfortunately it is not panning out as at least 90% of observers in this thread are vocally against such propositions.
I must apologise if my previous post was too subtle for you to recognise it for what it is. IÆll try harder in future.
Let me firstly present to you the current state of play before my post appeared. We are commenting on a Development blog with regards to ideas and proposed changes to capital ships in particular. The changes proposed are in no way helpful to capital ships as they are today. We could actually divine from this statement since that is what it is in essence that these ships are about to be nerfed.
The guise is balance or to redress a balance issue. Now letÆs say that we manage to whittle away at these changes through argument and in turn this whittling is accepted by the development team. To all viewers of the EvE community this would be seen as a victory and not a small one.
If I can present to you for example. In order for any balance to be redressed at all there has to be firstly an agreed imbalance and secondly a contra argument highlighting the said imbalance. To any proposed changes with regards to balance. My previous proposals are serious in as much as it is a buff vs. nerf argument. The degree is all important. If we donÆt have a contradictory argument then we already have an agreement at which point it is a matter of degree in how much the ships are actually changed/nerfed.
I am saying that the devÆs wanted to change capital ships, why I have no idea. So they, apropos of absolutely nothing, pitch their argument real high(carriers are an I win button) and allow us to argue it down to the level they wished to change it to. Before this blog was issued there was no argument from either side of the fence on wither a capital ship was too powerful or not, (other than the obvious Titan) only discussions on reducing lag. I suspect the reason for this was that most players who encounter this style of play were already happy with the limitations imposed by previous changes.
Edit for spelling.
|
Bishop 5
Gallente The Flying Tigers
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:47:00 -
[1308]
This is just silly.
-------------
meh |
Necronomicon
Caldari KIA Corp KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:50:00 -
[1309]
Again, CCP look at a problem (Mothership LS camping I expect) and weild the mighty nerf hammer wrecking every cap owner for unlimited pointlessness.
If you have 3-4 carriers camping a gate, they are usually moved on within the hour by a superior force. 3-4 Motherships and this becomes a bit difficult to do.
So, what can we do? Remeber how Superman was normal in his own world, but the earth's sun gave him uber powers? Why not code in a diminishing strength to super caps the further they get away from 0.0?
0.1-0.2 instead of 3 fighters per level, they get 2. 0.3-0.4 indtead of 3 fighters per level they get 1.
The ability for motherships to be immune to all forms of EW in 0.0, but their defense to this is powered by the type of stars in 0.0, once they come into low sec, the light spectrum is ill suited to power these defenses and they become inoperable.
See where I am going with this? Subtle ideas to target the issues at hand (if there are any, tbh I dont see what all the damn fuss is about) instead of a carte blanche womping of an entire profession.
Carlsberg dont make Eve Pilots, but if they did, i wouldnt be one of them.
|
Inturist
Nuclear Reactor Inc INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:51:00 -
[1310]
Originally by: CCP Eris Discordia Verone gets a cookie
Also it would help if people could try to look passed their own bias when they reply with constructive criticism.
Takk
PS for the right bribe I can slap, kick or throw stuff at him because he sits right beside me
NAh , no violence please
Atleast not till we reach 100 pages --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
Il Reverendo
Minmatar Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:51:00 -
[1311]
Originally by: Kagura Nikon
omg. The fact that someoen don fly a capital don make it un-eligible to have an important opinion on the subject. Why? Because there are two sides on this coin, the capital pilot and the guy being powned by capital pilots. If you have been in any of the 2 sides you have right to emit an opinion as good as anyone else!! In fact being on the under-sided side of the coin makes you eligible to a much more respectable opinion!
Grow up and realise the game it not only aboout you and your fellow elite capital pilots! You are a tiny minority of the player base. TINY!
Not really. If i've been shot do I suddenly have a better understanding of how a gun works? How to fire one? The psychology of the person pulling the trigger? The affect of wind-speed on bullet trajectory etc?
Nope.
All you learn from being pwned is what you did wrong and how to avoid it next time, and, in the above analogy, the fact that guns can shoot bullets and that bullets hurt.
The changes chiefly and directly affect the pilots of the ships changed, therefore people with experience in the operation of said ships are better informed to comment. The effects on the game as a whole are a different story.
So sorry, but you're wrong.
|
Lord Eremet
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:51:00 -
[1312]
Originally by: Icome4u
Originally by: Sin mez
Originally by: CCP Eris Discordia Verone gets a cookie
Also it would help if people could try to look passed their own bias when they reply with constructive criticism.
Takk
PS for the right bribe I can slap, kick or throw stuff at him because he sits right beside me
Do you even play the game? And talking about bias like that when it's pretty obvious you're full of it is disgraceful. What are you thinking? Do you even understand your own playerbase, or for that matter your own game? If one would look at the dev comments without bias they would realize the devs have lost touch in a big way.
/Signed. You just hit the thoughts of a couple thousand players!
/Even more signed.
I had a long rant here about that above but I decided it wasn't constructive so I deleted it. Instead look further down for a possible solution.
I can understand the problem that small-scale PVP gets ruined when your opponent suddenly drops a couple carriers on your head. It happened to me a couple of times and to friends in what would otherwise been enjoyable fights.
But nerfing carriers as a class and just make them a bigger Dominix albeit with a better logistic function is totally wrong way to go.
These new HACDictors that are coming, could be the first step to solve the problem. Give them a mobile cyno jammer module that only works on grid, but when activated immobilize the ship. It could have bonuses like 100% armor repair/shield boost when active but no offence ability and one activation should only last a few minutes but that could be improved with skills. Also making sure it takes fuel to activate would be a way to stop it being abused.
With that carriers would have to cyno in to another part of a solarsystem first before joining the fight or already be there, giving people time to react to a coming threat when they see the cynofield on overview.
Well thats my 2 cents idea. Now I'm gonna sit back and see if the Devs come up with something clever or if they are really itching to use that nerfbat anway. If they do then please remove carriers/moms from the game.
//Erem
|
Kataris Sarn
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:51:00 -
[1313]
Edited by: Kataris Sarn on 22/10/2007 11:55:08 I do not think the issue is that there is something wrong with carriers and moms..I think rather there is something wrong with the weapons you give us. Bare with me here. In the RL Navy for a long long time the Battle Ship was king. The carrier by it's very nature changed the maritime navy. How do we keep that from happening in Eve?
Let us not nerf the carrier or moms how about we examine the weapon systems a BS or BC can carry. What comes to mind is trade off. Bring in the idea of point defense systems...small rapid fire guns that are made for taking out fighters...they of course take up high slots and due to their nature take up cpu....people would have to rethink weapon load outs and the point defence guns would not be able to cover any more than that ship it was on. So you would have carriers that are still a threat...but may be unable to quickly do what has happened in the past..and BS and BC and larger now have the ability to defend themselves..yet they no longer are able to pound the carriers or PoS down as fast because they are now armed with PDG.
I am new to this game...but I just cannot see taking the time to work up a carrier to only have my command of my fighters taken away....that would be like someone bringing a BS and only having command of 1 gun while others in his fleet command the others.
|
The Economist
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 12:08:00 -
[1314]
Originally by: DeadDuck
NO. Alliances field the biggest numbers they can gather at a certain time and they bring the ships they think is better to do the job... You dont see people saying "hey guys we just need 50 to do this job" the other 100 guys putting "x" better go mine or npc...
The number of players in fleets will not increase because of this nerf, because alliances already field the biggest numbers available of pilots online to go to battle. What will be reduced is the number ofd capiatls ships present in battle. Thats Why I'min favour of the nerf.
Wrong. Capital numbers won't be reduced, however their application will become more cumbersome and tedious.
Also not everyone and not even every major alliance shares that philosophy of getting 1000 people to do a job that only takes 50. Some value quality over quantity, don't like to lag systems unnecessaily by ganging extraneous people and many many times in alliance chats and on ts I've seen and heard FC's saying "no, we don't need any more people we have enough".
Sig removed. Please keep sigs to 400x120 pixels and 24000 bytes in size or less. -Kaemonn |
Nahia Senne
Black Eclipse Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 12:09:00 -
[1315]
So many people here, wasting so much of their own time, trying to explain something obvious to anyone who participated in a decent fleet engagement
|
Raneru
Darwin With Attitude oooh Shiny
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 12:10:00 -
[1316]
I fully endorse this change, But thats probably because I hate cap ships for anything other than logistics
|
Blood Ghost
Occam's Razor Combine
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 12:10:00 -
[1317]
Originally by: Manas
As a fulltime carrier pilot, I am glad to see CCP is doing something to prevent 0.0 sovereignity warfare being too capital ship and supercap dominated. It was decreasing the ship variety in 0.0 battles and locking out younger players. Even after this nerf, carriers and MoMs will still be built everywhere, and be just as important to alliances.
Aye theyÆll just be as important just a lot less fun. Instead of being frontline theyÆll just sit at a POS or safe spot for hours û hardly the fair pay off for all the ISK and skill time.
|
creepervision
Veni Vidi Vici. SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 12:11:00 -
[1318]
if this goes into effect bye bye 4 eve accounts and hello http://www.fl-tw.com/Infinity/. keep the nerf bat swinging ccp.
|
Brixer
Dai Dai Hai
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 12:12:00 -
[1319]
Take a Thanatos ('best' carrier), then setup it up against 3 BS with standard small engagement gear which DOES include 1 large remote armor repper each. 1 of those BS can bring a neutralizer or 2 for good measure.
Let the carrier be able to deploy 10 fighters, which is pretty much max.
Now, let the fight begin... 15 minutes later.. Dead carrier.
ANY small BS gang with half a braincell can kill a lonely carrier, but here it seems some kid with 10M SP want to take down a carrier solo with his brand new Tier 3 BC. Get real, try the carrier before shouting nerf, and please don't calculate teoretical DPS from a carrier. The fact is it does less damage then a average BS in real ingame situations.
Yes it can tank, yes it can remote repp.. But fight? nah, BC and smaller outrun its fighters/drones, and larger ships tank every stupid fighter/drone a standard fit carrier can deploy, or/and just kill the fighters.
Try it on Sisi for gods sake!!!
If all the potential DPS from the fighters where used doing wrecking shots I tend to agree, but as it is now a stabber can tank 5 fighters by standing still (Tracking/sig ftl). So the theory must be that a Stabber can tank 1000 DPS. Errrrrr.. nerf Stabber.
A tempest can tank 7 fighters.. Same again, stand still and the fighters will miss more than hit. This is tested on Sisi with a Thanatos pilot with lvl 3 Carrier and lvl 3 fighters.
On the issue with motherships I might give the blogger some credit, but to force more people out to support it.. Wouldn't it be *much* simpler to give it +5 scram strength and let it be scramable. bye-bye lo-sec-solo-pwn-mobile. The main problem isn't the DPS from a MS, it's their imunity to scraming. Keep a MS in place and 10 BS should be able to kill it.
|
ER0X
Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 12:12:00 -
[1320]
Carriers as they are now have ruined small fleet engagements.
This argument from Verone is pretty poor to be honest I expect better from a seasoned campaigner. Sure youÆll stand down or drive around it. Yeah right!
First of all we have to establish your definition of small gang/fleet?
5 hacs? 10? Maybe 5 hacs 5 intys? Maybe 15 assorted ships from command ship down to T1 cruisers perhaps?
I take it youÆd be using these in a roaming style where by any solo ship or smaller gang that happens across your path will be letÆs say æWIPED FEKKIN OOT!Æ Of course all this would happen within the same time frame as is reported of how long it takes a carrier to kill a BS. 0.2 secÆs << Laughable time frame.
IÆm also expected to believe that you would drive this gang around a carrier if scouted off guard. You know as well as I do that a gang like that would by the same token WIPE OOT! a carrier in less than 90 seconds. Trust me I know you know this cause we certainly do.
So your position on this has been flavoured by your gank squad running up against a brick wall and getting itself rattled? CÆmon man behave yourself.
|
|
Bon Hedus
Amarr O.E.C Legionnaire Services Ltd.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 12:13:00 -
[1321]
It keeps sounding like the underlying problem is people camping low sec with MS, or dropping MS into low sec. So ban MS from low sec.
-------------------------------------- Heavy Lag Spike II belonging to EvE Cluster Node #0815 hits your Connection, wrecking your latency to 998ms |
Jin Entres
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 12:13:00 -
[1322]
Originally by: DeadDuck
If you have 100 guys making x's in alliance for a fleet op they can all bring carriers by the present system ( thats 1000 fighetr drones in perscpective) by the new system those same 100 carriers could only deploy 500 drones, unless ther reduce the number of people in carriers and bring pilots for support.
The number of players in fleets will not increase because of this nerf, because alliances already field the biggest numbers available of pilots online to go to battle. What will be reduced is the number ofd capiatls ships present in battle. Thats Why I'min favour of the nerf.
It's not as straightforward as that.
FC's decide to go in and engage based on power balance, ie. "do we have enough to take them?" If carriers are less effective, the engagement will simply not happen until more people are online. That amounts to both less engagements and more pilots in gangs on average. Where less carriers are now deemed enough to engage more battleships, more will be required if this change goes through.
If there are consistently insufficient support pilots in relation to capital pilots, recruitment will accelerate to make up, further increasing gang sizes. ---
|
Koredor
Veni Vidi Vici. SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 12:14:00 -
[1323]
Edited by: Koredor on 22/10/2007 12:15:11 I have spent the past 2 years building up and training for capital ships..
Spent billions of isk... Invested alot of time and effort.
And so have 100's if not 1000's of others
And now your nerfing motherships ? I am sorry, But they have there use, For support etc, But to take away their offensive power, Yes i know they can give them to gang but tbh that is crap..
Leave the motherships the way they are.
|
Cindy Marco
Minmatar Solar Storm Sev3rance
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 12:14:00 -
[1324]
Carriers take alot of skills, if you train all their support skills. And I've spent alot of time training them. All the high rank skills, the Jump Drive skills, capital mods, the capital logistic mods, gang links, etc, take a LONG time to train for.
If you nerf them this hard you've wasted alot of our time, and money.
|
Dav Varan
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 12:15:00 -
[1325]
Another route to making them more vulnerable without support would be to remove there Invulnerability to all known forms of ecm.
Give carriers 100 sensor strength and MS 200 sensor strength. Remove there invulnerbility to warp scrambling too give them -2 warp core strength instead.
Now its much more dangerous to use an MS without a support fleet without having to program all the extra code for limiting fighters , which lets face it is gonna be riddled with bugs when it arrives anyway. |
Tzrailasa
Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 12:15:00 -
[1326]
Originally by: Kagura Nikon
Originally by: Tzrailasa
Originally by: CCP Eris Discordia .... and I am training up for capital ships....
So in essence, you're admitting you don't know BY EXPERIENCE what you're talking about???
This is the same complaint a lot of people here has about Zuluparks 'fix'. It simply doesn't make ANY sense to anyone who've tried to fight in the lagged out blob-hell that is todays 0.0 warfare experience.
Carriers didn't make this blob-hell.... CCP did by their design decisions....
omg. The fact that someoen don fly a capital don make it un-eligible to have an important opinion on the subject. Why? Because there are two sides on this coin, the capital pilot and the guy being powned by capital pilots. If you have been in any of the 2 sides you have right to emit an opinion as good as anyone else!! In fact being on the under-sided side of the coin makes you eligible to a much more respectable opinion!
Grow up and realise the game it not only aboout you and your fellow elite capital pilots! You are a tiny minority of the player base. TINY!
If you look up my character on the BoB killboard, you'll see that I don't fly capitals. I also have a battleships pilot who currently can fly carriers in a hauler role, but not in combat. I HAVE, however, been in many battles alongside and against carriers, motherships, dreads and titans.
You are also completely missing the main point! If you try to balance something, you need to know EXACTLY how it works. Neither Eris not Zulupark has demonstrated such knowledge (as a matter of fact, they demonstrate exactly that they have NO real knowledge about carrier warfare)!
The proposed 'fix' will simply not work (unless the real objective is to remove carriers from combat altogether)! Assigning fighters can not be done under the hell-lag conditions that are the current state of 0.0 warfare. Repping is a joke for carriers in fleet battle too, and triage mode is as broken as anything.
My views are my own. They do not represent the views of my corporation or alliance. |
Kronn Blackthorne
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 12:18:00 -
[1327]
so basicaly , the major whine bout carriers and mom is : bouhou i can t field more or same ships than my oppoenent ? so because u CANNOT , ur opponent SHOULD NOT fly it ? Solution : when u create a character , let him have 50 mil SP ( to be competitive with older players ) and let give him like 100 bil ( so he can buy big ships ) . so the 2 days old noob can kill a 4 years old veteran !!!!
i started this game at beginning , yes i ****in expect to slaughter a 2 days old noob , yes i m gonna like it , because that s what make eve special
i have a scoop for u : Life is unfair
The Frenchy |
Il Reverendo
Minmatar Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 12:18:00 -
[1328]
Edited by: Il Reverendo on 22/10/2007 12:19:20
Originally by: Manas
As a fulltime carrier pilot, I am glad to see CCP is doing something to prevent 0.0 sovereignity warfare being too capital ship and supercap dominated. It was decreasing the ship variety in 0.0 battles and locking out younger players. Even after this nerf, carriers and MoMs will still be built everywhere, and be just as important to alliances.
That statement works the other way round too. You 0.0 sov warfare is dominated by caps and supercaps (incidentally have you ever tried to take down a system full of large pos with just a bs fleet? I can have more fun with swarf.ega [crazy word filter], a bucket of sand and my...well..you get the message). However caps need support to be anything other than bbq'd. Said support is always, by necessity (and due to skillpoints etc), larger than the caps/supercaps they're supporting. Without the support the caps are flying coffins. It could therefore be said that 0.0 sov warfare is in fact domination by non-caps with the cap ships as the minority support.
[and if you honestly see decreasing ship variety in 0.0 battles (I assume you're implying everyone is in carriers) then I would advise you get the cataracts removed]
|
Xune
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 12:19:00 -
[1329]
Originally by: Dav Varan Another route to making them more vulnerable without support would be to remove there Invulnerability to all known forms of ecm.
Give carriers 100 sensor strength and MS 200 sensor strength. Remove there invulnerbility to warp scrambling too give them -2 warp core strength instead.
Now its much more dangerous to use an MS without a support fleet without having to program all the extra code for limiting fighters , which lets face it is gonna be riddled with bugs when it arrives anyway.
Obviusly you have no idear what your talking about. the Ecm system, as broken as it is since ccp¦s overly loving " we change things that are not broken" where never a real problem, talking about ECM modules here.
Put 2 sensordampeners on a mnaulus and hit a Carrier with it, then my friend you got a problem. You cant even fit enough sensorbooster on a carrier to prevet a 20k sp toon to damp you, rendering you complete and utterly usless.
|
BhallSpawn
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 12:24:00 -
[1330]
Can I have my last 9 months of skill points allocated to something else? Seeing as how everytime I train for something it gets nerfed. BAD IDEA.
You woudn't tell the Battlestar Galactica that it can't have more than 5 fighters controled by Admiral Adama.... "sorry starbuck, wait in the hanger till one of your buddies dies off then you can fly out"
|
|
AlleyKat
Gallente White-Noise Skunk-Works
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 12:26:00 -
[1331]
Originally by: Kwint Sommer
TheyÆre not logistics ships you idiots, theyÆre f***ing carriers that are capable of logistics. Just read the lore about them, especially on the description. Does it talk about healing other ships? No! Do they go into details about deploying fighters and being on the front lines? Yes! Do you idiots fly carriers? I sincerely doubt it. Do you understand the absurdity of training for more than a year and investing billions in a simple logistics ship? Evidently not.
No, I don't fly carriers as it is a ship class which does not suit my preference (currently) and I always saw carriers as something which were going to be balanced eventually. On top of that, we all saw the changes which were taking place with triage mode and titans - these proposed changes do not surprise me.
The Thorax got it's drone bay reduced at the end of 2005, as fielding 8 ogres was too much for a crusier - motherships fielding 20 fighters is along the same lines.
I do sympathise with those who have invested what they have into capital ships for skills etc, as that is a realised goal now removed from you.
CCP are proposing a risky move, but I stand by my opinion that it is necessary balancing.
AK.
|
Garia666
Amarr T.H.U.G L.I.F.E
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 12:35:00 -
[1332]
anyway Zulupark i have to give you credit that you manage to make your self known and notoriouse with your first dev blog..
gratz :)
->My Vids<- |
Blood Ghost
Occam's Razor Combine
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 12:35:00 -
[1333]
Originally by: AlleyKat
The Thorax got it's drone bay reduced at the end of 2005, as fielding 8 ogres was too much for a crusier - motherships fielding 20 fighters is along the same lines.
A fighter at max fighter skill (rank 12 - 3 million sp) does a 100 dps. A mothership with 20 (needing carrier lvl 5 - again a rank 12 skill) would do a mere 2000 dps. Thats less then 2 blaster megathrons, hardly overpowered given the isk costs and skill time
|
Kronn Blackthorne
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 12:37:00 -
[1334]
only people flying caps / supercaps should comment here , since all the other comments are mostly ******** and clueless bout how strong and how carriers work .
The Frenchy |
Professor Poontang
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 12:37:00 -
[1335]
1. The whole justification for CCP allowing employees to play the game was to evaluate the game play quality and checks/balances. Therefore responding to a group of angry players complain on the forums to get the power balance in the game shifted to favor their style of play is both unfair and unneccessary as you (CCP) already can see whats going on in the game.
2. You are about to patch the game with several new classes of ships being added, in poarticular the Black ops BS with the special cloaking/jumpdrive abilities. These additions are going to have significant effects on the game and making too many changes in too short a time period is just rediculous as you will only be rebalancing several times afterward.
When you are feelign a little cold, you don't turn up the heat, throw on a second shirt and a sweater, and grab a blanket. You'd be sweating within minutes. You do one adjustment at a time.
Lets see how the new ships come into play.
3. If some caps are over powered in some situations the don't only reevaluate the cap ship, but also look at the situation.
ex.1 Perhaps motherships shouldn't be allowed in low sec at all.
ex.2 Perhaps Dictor bubbles shouldn't work near super-caps (like MWD don't work in deadspace) so a mothership can't turn into a brick wall dead end to kill 20 BS. While at the same time adjust those suprcaps to where normal scrams wiull work but it just takes 25+ points to scram them.
4. Suddenly nerfing the caps now would appear too much to be in favor of BOB who is now starting to feel the pressure of everyone else having the bad boys. BoB ruled the skies with them when they were the only ones who could afford them, now that other entities are starting to be able to field them, let us have our fun too before you whittle them away.
|
Rusty PwnStar
Rampage Eternal Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 12:39:00 -
[1336]
Originally by: Blood Ghost
Originally by: AlleyKat
The Thorax got it's drone bay reduced at the end of 2005, as fielding 8 ogres was too much for a crusier - motherships fielding 20 fighters is along the same lines.
A fighter at max fighter skill (rank 12 - 3 million sp) does a 100 dps. A mothership with 20 (needing carrier lvl 5 - again a rank 12 skill) would do a mere 2000 dps. Thats less then 2 blaster megathrons, hardly overpowered given the isk costs and skill time
That kind of logic seems to go over the heads of the 'It's a balance' lot in this thread.
I would like to know, why we need this balance (when every carrier/ms pilot say otherwise) and exactly why they imagine that carriers are I-WIN buttons.
Regards Rusty |
Jane Spondogolo
NoobWaffe
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 12:39:00 -
[1337]
Edited by: Jane Spondogolo on 22/10/2007 12:42:59 Well, since this thread is stacked with bug eyed carrier nuts, theres hardly little room for rational disussion of the topic.
But here goes.
Carriers, motherships and Titans have uttery sucked the creativity out of 0.0 warfare.
Go back a year ago, well yeah. There where carriers. But they where not the central driving force of 0.0 conquest or defense. That honor belonged to the battleship. The battleship brought with him support ships. Cruisers, intys, ewar ships (Still lots of T1 stuff, before CCP bashed ewar over the head with the nerf stick) , and so on. Then two things happened, one positive, one negative.
First off T2 ships started becoming more baseline. Invention broke that stupid monopoly open and made the things affordable, and more and more players specialized out from battleships into HACs, Recons, Dictors and so on. This is great. The diversity it brought into the game was fantastic.
But for fleet battle something absolutely crap happened. The titan. There was almost no point in bringing a T2 ship to the field when before your screen would even load up you'd be doomsdayed. It seemed all those years of training where made pointless as people just had the option of either forgoing fleet war, being lambs to the slaughter in horribly gimped battleships that could *barely* cope with one blast, or going for more supercaps and capitals.
When CCP finally realised that the Titan was killing the game, it made Titan warfare risky for the pilot, and we started seeing real fleet battles again. Hurrah. That titan could still ruin your day, but you could potentially ruin his too. Its almost indisputable that this was a really really smart move in retrospect. Theres only been a couple of titans killed so far due to real PVP, but fleet fights are back in action again.
But theres still one more thing that makes fleet fights ****ty. Thats fighterbombing. Theres nothing more worthless than to jump into a system, bubbled as all hell, and be smashed with 6 or 7 hundred fighters BEFORE the screen loads up. The fighters are both a powerful weapon, and a absolutely useless source of lag.
No, its not as bad as the "Titan problem" (I half suspect CCP rues the day it ever introduced those worthless things) , but its clearly unbalanced as all hell.
Furthermore, "supercaps online" really doesnt have a role for new players at all. There *must* be a role for support ships, if this game is going to survive. Nobodys going to spend 2 years struggling in empire before they can finaly enter 0.0. We do NOT want a system where the Goons are last group of genuine newbies ever able to hit 0.0 with a vengance. A gang of 2000 T1 frig pilots are going to eat dust if they challenge even the smaller 0.0 alliances now, simply because those alliances can construct a wall of lagbomb fighters and murder every frigate who enters.
Thats not cool, if you genuinely wish this game to last more than a few more years.
So whats the solution? Well, it seems like amongst the carrier dependant players, this isn't popular, but one way or another, we need to coax those guys out of the carriers and in to non stupid ships. The suggested way is one good idea, by making support ships relevant. The other way may well be to just limit fighters to 5 per carrier, and buff those fighters so no DPS loss. If we get it down to a hundred fighters maximum at a gate, theres a small chance this game might be worth playing again for newer players.
And I remind the 2yo capship pilots that you have *no idea* how hard it is to be a newer player in 0.0. When you where one, you didn't have to put up with the bull**** your subjecting newbies to now. ______ Unrepentant Southern Federation Cheerleader.
|
Derilic
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 12:44:00 -
[1338]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark aaah, don't beat me, i'm sorry, stoooop!
Fixed.
|
Kronn Blackthorne
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 12:44:00 -
[1339]
Edited by: Kronn Blackthorne on 22/10/2007 12:45:55
Originally by: Jane Spondogolo
......... And I remind the 2yo capship pilots that you have *no idea* how hard it is to be a newer player in 0.0. When you where one, you didn't have to put up with the bull**** your subjecting newbies to now.
wow , so u found someone u can t beat , and this guy should be nerfed ? yea , he spent 4 years playin but damn , he should die to my uba ibis of doom in his ****ty carrier !
oh , and u know there s always someone above u , when old players were in cruisers , some were in battelships and they were killing the poor cruisers , did we ask for a nerf ? we did adapt ..... that s how u become stronger ...
The Frenchy |
Jane Spondogolo
NoobWaffe
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 12:45:00 -
[1340]
Oh and for what its worth, CCP's suggestion won't fix the real problem with fighters, and thats lag. Imho, the only way to achieve that is to simply reduce the number of fighters and buff those fighters in the process. Theres absolutely no good reason why a mothership should be able to cause the same lag as a small fleet of non drone bearing carriers, but thats what effectively happens. Fix that problem, and every body wins. ______ Unrepentant Southern Federation Cheerleader.
|
|
Rusty PwnStar
Rampage Eternal Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 12:51:00 -
[1341]
Originally by: Jane Spondogolo Oh and for what its worth, CCP's suggestion won't fix the real problem with fighters, and thats lag. Imho, the only way to achieve that is to simply reduce the number of fighters and buff those fighters in the process. Theres absolutely no good reason why a mothership should be able to cause the same lag as a small fleet of non drone bearing carriers, but thats what effectively happens. Fix that problem, and every body wins.
I think you'll find that's a coding issue, one of which they are placing at our feet.
Regards Rusty |
Sonos SAGD
Black Eclipse Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 12:52:00 -
[1342]
Edited by: Sonos SAGD on 22/10/2007 12:54:03 Question?
If you want carriers to be the ships that keep you alive then why don't they have the same skill tree as logisitic sihps and all have repping bonus
|
Jane Spondogolo
NoobWaffe
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 12:54:00 -
[1343]
Originally by: Kronn Blackthorne
Originally by: Jane Spondogolo
......... And I remind the 2yo capship pilots that you have *no idea* how hard it is to be a newer player in 0.0. When you where one, you didn't have to put up with the bull**** your subjecting newbies to now.
wow , so u found someone u can t beat , and this guy should be nerfed ? yea , he spent 4 years playin but damn , he should die to my uba ibis of doom in his ****ty carrier !
I did not say that. I'm saying that removing all possible role for players under 1 year old is an absolutely worthless idea. Elitism kills MMOs. When the gap between Newbie and Oldbie is so large that nothing the newbie can do can protect his arse from the Oldbie, the Newbie stops playing and the game starts to die. Eves traditional method of letting newbies form large gangs and predating on smaller gangs of stronger players defeats the issue. If your in a newbie corp , and empire hac gang xyz decide they are going to kick your caracals out of the game, your best bet is to fight big and strategic. And thats fine, thats the ecosystem of the game. Theres ALWAYS a counter. Even to high SP.
But that can't happen in 0.0.
Just remember, just because you've been changing a skill every now and then for the past couple of years does not make you a better pilot than the 6 month old interceptor genius. That you can kill him isn't your skill winning , its a virtual game mechanic coincidently also called 'skill'.
Your 4 years in the game do NOT make you more important than the 6 month old. You havent done a damn thing to deserve it other than flip a skill every now and then.
This is unpalatable to the old hands, but its the absolute truth. Fighterbombing HAS to stop. Its a worthless talentless tactic and its killed the creativity right out of PVP.
In honesty, the healthiest thing the game could do is to slowly retire out the old players and let the new players freshen out the game. Brutal? Sure, but a small minority of super high SP players throwing hissy fits and quitting is not necessarily a bad thing, if it restores balance to the universe. ______ Unrepentant Southern Federation Cheerleader.
|
Gama24
No Quarter. Vae Victis.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 12:55:00 -
[1344]
Just adding my voice to the nay-sayers. This changes look awful. Is it wrong to think that super capital ships should be... I don't know... super? And limiting the number of fighters for plain carriers...no. Thank you, but no. I was going for carrier skills but looks like I will have to settle for dreads.
Oh, and
rabble! Rabble! Rabble!
--------------------------------------
g24 |
Imperius Blackheart
Caldari Trinity Nova KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 12:58:00 -
[1345]
Edited by: Imperius Blackheart on 22/10/2007 12:59:04 Personally in the last 3 or so months, i've been in on 3 carrier kills, my alliance/corp mates more, and there have been more MS downed than ever before, they seem to be going down left right and centre.
Seems like they need nerfing now more than ever
P.S - I've been skilling for a while for capitals, and particularly wanted a wyvern... I don't think I will bother if this change went though. Its just a waste of the last 4-5 months skilling for me. http://www.myspace.com/cakeisalie
|
Molly Neuro
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 12:59:00 -
[1346]
Originally by: CCP Eris Discordia
Originally by: Sin mez
Do you even play the game? And talking about bias like that when it's pretty obvious you're full of it is disgraceful. What are you thinking? Do you even understand your own playerbase, or for that matter your own game? If one would look at the dev comments without bias they would realize the devs have lost touch in a big way.
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.
Anyone who has ever flown a carrier knows it is not a "win button" or even close to it.
Perhaps you didn't read the thread - I've never seen as many well constructed arguments against a single proposal. You have as much constructuve criticism as it is possible to give - try reading it and taking it onboard. It's very easy to think "players are biased we know what is best" it's more difficult, but also correct to think "looks like we got this wrong"
|
bluechimera
D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 12:59:00 -
[1347]
Allow me to say, this is the most ******** idea/balance/nerf I have *ever* heard. So lets see. Mr. Newguywhodoesntusecapitals decides that a carrier should only personally control 5 fighters/drones. So we all paid 1B for the ship (and then all the equipment) to do battleship damage? Lets just save ourselves the trouble and everyone fly Domi's.
Oh wait, my carrier isnt pointless, it can fit haulers with cans in its ship bay and do mass transport! Oh, right, no cans in ships inside ship bay now. Oh yea, jump freighters with asstons more space.
I know its vulgar, I know I shouldnt say it, but this is ****in me off, get your ******* head on straight ccp.
|
Zachri
Minmatar IVC Consortium INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 12:59:00 -
[1348]
Isn't it striking that you can observe this insane amount of agreement between everyone who on a daily basis is specialised to smash each other's skulls - but here they're like kissing each other up and teaming up on the same ball ...
Makes you wonder why heh :P
|
Kronn Blackthorne
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 12:59:00 -
[1349]
Originally by: Jane Spondogolo
..... In honesty, the healthiest thing the game could do is to slowly retire out the old players and let the new players freshen out the game. Brutal? Sure, but a small minority of super high SP players throwing hissy fits and quitting is not necessarily a bad thing, if it restores balance to the universe.
just LOL
The Frenchy |
Damon Grim
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 13:00:00 -
[1350]
What a load of rubbish ccp leave carriers alone, why bother training lvl 5 Fighter skills and more just to nerf us later.
Not everyone flys a carrier in a group so the indevidual gets penalised too.
Stop changing things on existing ships create new ones to counteract etc. |
|
The Economist
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 13:00:00 -
[1351]
Originally by: Jane Spondogolo
Furthermore, "supercaps online" really doesnt have a role for new players at all. There *must* be a role for support ships
How exactly do they not currently have a role? Imo they have the most important role of all (besides those they have always filled and continue to fill every day; I'm assuming from the tone of your post that you mean bs as well) namely keeping those multi-billion isk ships alive, and, well, you know....supporting them...
Quote: Jane Spondogolo]Oh and for what its worth, CCP's suggestion won't fix the real problem with fighters, and thats lag. Imho, the only way to achieve that is to simply reduce the number of fighters and buff those fighters in the process. Theres absolutely no good reason why a mothership should be able to cause the same lag as a small fleet of non drone bearing carriers, but thats what effectively happens. Fix that problem, and every body wins.
I think pretty much everyone agrees the biggest problem, as with all things, is lag.
However I don't think your solution would work in the long run, for the very reason that it hasn't.
A while ago the amount of drones able to be fielded was cut in half and their dmg and hitpoints correspondingly buffed. It solved the problem in the short-term but obviously has failed in the long-run since the issue has once again raised its ugly head. Doing the same thing again will just postpone the issue until the size of the member base and/or increase in personal wealth results in the same old situation. If the pattern is followed we'll end up at a stage with the minimal amount of drones being used by each player and the same problem, only then the only way out would be to remove drones.
I'm no programmer but rational thought does imply that the ony way to solve the problem is to fix it at its source, and I can only assume that that source lies in the drone code, or some otherwise complicated technical area.
(god, I think i'm addicted to this thread)
Sig removed. Please keep sigs to 400x120 pixels and 24000 bytes in size or less. -Kaemonn |
Jane Spondogolo
NoobWaffe
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 13:01:00 -
[1352]
Edited by: Jane Spondogolo on 22/10/2007 13:02:37 And for what its worth, Outbreak of all people should 'get' the value of creativity in PVP. Your one of the few old world corps that still has a sense of it.
Imagine if every gate you jumped your fancy blingboats into just lead straight to the clonebay due to lag. Come on you guys of all people should understand that.
edit: And yes I was trolling you with the "make high sp players quit" comment. ______ Unrepentant Southern Federation Cheerleader.
|
Steve Mo'yb
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 13:01:00 -
[1353]
1. Do you like this idea (that is the more-support-oriented idea)?
Yes and No, Carriers have been the way they are for too long changing them is gonna **** alot of people off, and leave them way to vunerable if caught alone aganst say a solo bs :/
2. If so, do you like the approach we're thinking about (fighter deployment limits)?
No i dont feel that any playe should be forced into a role or entrust there hundreds of mill in fighters to someone else they dont trust
3. If you liked the idea but no the solution, what propositions do you have?
I think that carrier pilots shouldnt be forced to do this but rewarded for doing it by buffing asigned fighters dmg/tank/speed, this makes it more attractive and more effective to be used as a support ship along side a gang
4. If you don't like the idea at all, why not?
Carriers have been the way the ycurrently are too long and aolot of people have invested alot of ISK/Skilling to get them to fly this way effectively it would be unfair to change the ships role.
|
midge Mo'yb
R.U.S.T. Phalanx Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 13:02:00 -
[1354]
Originally by: Steve Mo'yb
1. Do you like this idea (that is the more-support-oriented idea)?
Yes and No, Carriers have been the way they are for too long changing them is gonna **** alot of people off, and leave them way to vunerable if caught alone aganst say a solo bs :/
2. If so, do you like the approach we're thinking about (fighter deployment limits)?
No i dont feel that any playe should be forced into a role or entrust there hundreds of mill in fighters to someone else they dont trust
3. If you liked the idea but no the solution, what propositions do you have?
I think that carrier pilots shouldnt be forced to do this but rewarded for doing it by buffing asigned fighters dmg/tank/speed, this makes it more attractive and more effective to be used as a support ship along side a gang
4. If you don't like the idea at all, why not?
Carriers have been the way the ycurrently are too long and aolot of people have invested alot of ISK/Skilling to get them to fly this way effectively it would be unfair to change the ships role.
god damn alt keeps setting itself primary char -----------------------------------------------
|
Kronn Blackthorne
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 13:03:00 -
[1355]
sorry for playin this game since beta, , i beg u pardon for all old players , please new players , accept our apologizes for having ton of skillpoints and isks , we are leaving the game for u , call us in 4 years once u ll have same skills / money , but beware of the noobs , they will ask u to leave
The Frenchy |
Ieu Duin
Amarr Star Sabre Industries
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 13:04:00 -
[1356]
You started your blog by saying "We want to make fighter wielding capital ships more reliant on their support fleet and less of a direct nber deathbringer.", but you have not explained how you are going to make capital ships more reliant on "their" support fleet.
Capital ships should be the deathbringers. That is what the combat capitals should be. Just like capital freighters should be the "stuffbringers."
The issue is trade-off. The reason the capitol ships need a support fleet is that they should require large amounts of support on order to operate. Give them all the fighters you want, but because they have so many weapons they don't have room for things like power, shield or armor tanks. They need other ships to support and defend them. They should not have any defenses beyond limited missile defense and their own fighters.
CCP originally designed these ships so one player can play them. But, now you have created a situation where players can destroy a battle ship in ".2 seconds" as you have admitted yourself.
Don't take away or limit the use of the capital ship as the ultimate weapon, but make them more vulnerable to attack and in need of massive support in order to function.
Forcing the player to use his assets in a certain way is an artificial restriction on game play. Make it more challenging for the player to use a capital ship and you increase the fun for all.
|
The Fates
Caldari Perkone
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 13:06:00 -
[1357]
Originally by: CCP Wrangler ... Following in the footsteps of TomB and Tuxford...
I lol'd. I wish I had something to say... like I'm surprised. __ Be content with your lot; one cannot be first in everything. --Aesop |
Nytemaster
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 13:07:00 -
[1358]
Originally by: Jane Spondogolo Edited by: Jane Spondogolo on 22/10/2007 12:42:59 Well, since this thread is stacked with bug eyed carrier nuts, theres hardly little room for rational disussion of the topic.
But here goes.
Carriers, motherships and Titans have uttery sucked the creativity out of 0.0 warfare.
Go back a year ago, well yeah. There where carriers. But they where not the central driving force of 0.0 conquest or defense. That honor belonged to the battleship. The battleship brought with him support ships. Cruisers, intys, ewar ships (Still lots of T1 stuff, before CCP bashed ewar over the head with the nerf stick) , and so on. Then two things happened, one positive, one negative.
First off T2 ships started becoming more baseline. Invention broke that stupid monopoly open and made the things affordable, and more and more players specialized out from battleships into HACs, Recons, Dictors and so on. This is great. The diversity it brought into the game was fantastic.
But for fleet battle something absolutely crap happened. The titan. There was almost no point in bringing a T2 ship to the field when before your screen would even load up you'd be doomsdayed. It seemed all those years of training where made pointless as people just had the option of either forgoing fleet war, being lambs to the slaughter in horribly gimped battleships that could *barely* cope with one blast, or going for more supercaps and capitals.
When CCP finally realised that the Titan was killing the game, it made Titan warfare risky for the pilot, and we started seeing real fleet battles again. Hurrah. That titan could still ruin your day, but you could potentially ruin his too. Its almost indisputable that this was a really really smart move in retrospect. Theres only been a couple of titans killed so far due to real PVP, but fleet fights are back in action again.
But theres still one more thing that makes fleet fights ****ty. Thats fighterbombing. Theres nothing more worthless than to jump into a system, bubbled as all hell, and be smashed with 6 or 7 hundred fighters BEFORE the screen loads up. The fighters are both a powerful weapon, and a absolutely useless source of lag.
No, its not as bad as the "Titan problem" (I half suspect CCP rues the day it ever introduced those worthless things) , but its clearly unbalanced as all hell.
Furthermore, "supercaps online" really doesnt have a role for new players at all. There *must* be a role for support ships, if this game is going to survive. Nobodys going to spend 2 years struggling in empire before they can finaly enter 0.0. We do NOT want a system where the Goons are last group of genuine newbies ever able to hit 0.0 with a vengance. A gang of 2000 T1 frig pilots are going to eat dust if they challenge even the smaller 0.0 alliances now, simply because those alliances can construct a wall of lagbomb fighters and murder every frigate who enters.
Thats not cool, if you genuinely wish this game to last more than a few more years.
So whats the solution? Well, it seems like amongst the carrier dependant players, this isn't popular, but one way or another, we need to coax those guys out of the carriers and in to non stupid ships. The suggested way is one good idea, by making support ships relevant. The other way may well be to just limit fighters to 5 per carrier, and buff those fighters so no DPS loss. If we get it down to a hundred fighters maximum at a gate, theres a small chance this game might be worth playing again for newer players.
And I remind the 2yo capship pilots that you have *no idea* how hard it is to be a newer player in 0.0. When you where one, you didn't have to put up with the bull**** your subjecting newbies to now.
/signed
Best post in this thread thus far. (Haven't read ALL of it though)
|
The Economist
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 13:08:00 -
[1359]
Originally by: Jane Spondogolo Fighterbombing HAS to stop. Its a worthless talentless tactic and its killed the creativity right out of PVP.
The proposed changes won't stop that. In fact, from the point of view of someone not in a cap it'll probably make it worse.
Have a think...
At the moment when carriers are involved in kills they tend to be in the thick of the fight controlling their own drones.
With these changes we will find more sitting at pos, delegating their fighters.
What locks you (a non-cap) faster and is more likely to get you scrambled faster? A carrier? Or perhaps anything smaller than a carrier?
Yep that's right, support.
So if you're supporting these changes because, in part, you think they'll stop "fighterbombing" then I'm afraid you're sorely mistaken.
Sig removed. Please keep sigs to 400x120 pixels and 24000 bytes in size or less. -Kaemonn |
Pedronicus
Caldari The Chaotic Order
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 13:09:00 -
[1360]
I don't have carriers and not plan on having them as i am still very new to Eve but just nerfing things after things while someone in CCP got drunk and put up this utter crap is beyond my imagination, there were some problems with motherships like low sec camping and stuff but to come up with those problems with this planned nerf shows nothing but lack of gaming knowledge on the game developer's part. ffs these are capitol ships and not supposed to fly just the same 5 drones like other normal ships, even guardian can field more Razz.
really what i don't like is CCP coming with a big nerf like this and without any say from players who have spent their countless time and skills for these ships, yeah they are only testing this on test server and it is still a plan, did any of their previous plans got stopped because player's community didn't wanted it? -------------------------------------------------- Holiness is in right action, and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves. |
|
Kalestra Cable
Caldari Faust Industries
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 13:09:00 -
[1361]
Although I don't take part in 0.0 etc (newb to game) and yes i know my opinion therefore carries zero weight it seems from reading this and many other postings since I started playing it's not that a single carrier or MOM is a problem but the fact everyone is eventually ending up in them.
Fleet battles with 30+ carriers 10+ Mom's and a ton of battleships/support is killing the servers/game and I'm doubting it's something CCP can fix without X number of years to redesign the underlying code. (otherwise they'd have done it already, fix game for 200 vs 200 and people bring 400 vs 400 )
Rather than nerfing carriers it would probably be best to have another ***** at nerfing blobs, redesign the Titan's DD so it's damage is related to the number of enemy ships on the grid and only hits hostiles.
Give all ships a point value related to their perceived value and if your sides total hits the magic (CCP decided) total the DD goes into a hyper damage mode i.e. rips thru the fabric of space and scales up to a point where tanking the damage isn't possible and carriers and blow pop and MoM's or Titans are devastated. (make up the RP reason for the extra damage)
It would force people to break the blob or risk total destruction, smaller fleet battles where you choose what you type of ships you'll bring and people spread their forces across multiple systems in more epic constellation style battle and less of a lag slide show.
And if you don't like it being a titan weapon a large bomb on a T2 ship of some sort?
Anyway just an idea
Kal
|
Pallidum Treponema
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 13:11:00 -
[1362]
I currently own and run eight active accounts. My boyfriend runs two of his own, one of which I'm paying for. I've personally paid for at least four more accounts for friends.
Two of these accounts are carrier pilots. One of those is actively training towards motherships. Most of the other accounts are either supporting carriers (cynos) or are production alts. My goal in the past year or more of my eve playing time has been to acquire the skills, funds and means to get myself into a carrier, then eventually a mothership. Three months ago, I got my first character into a carrier. Since then I have been actively using this carrier in almost every operation that my alliance have fought in that have required carriers.
By my calculations, I will be able to afford my mothership by the time my character is fully qualified (JDC5, Carrier 5 etc), which will be in about half a year. Once I have achieved that, I will have spent almost two years of my eve playing time training for one specific ship. I will have paid for at least TEN different accounts in order to acquire the funds for said mothership, some of which I've paid for friends so that they could join my production corp and help me in my task. When my job sent me to Australia, I paid $20 per DAY to get internet to my hotelroom, for SIX WEEKS so that I could play eve with my alliance, and keep up the production of my alt corp.
Should CCP decide to go forward with this proposal, or anything even remotely similar to this proposal, they will have removed a BIG reason for why I'm making this commitment to this game.
I WILL vote with my wallet.
And no, you can't have my stuff.
-- MC's Swedish squidshark
|
GS Armada
Caldari Omega Enterprises Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 13:13:00 -
[1363]
no way that this going to happen that just sucks and i just finished all the training.
|
Grimreaperr
The Eternal Knights
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 13:14:00 -
[1364]
Not everyone flys a carrier in group, changing the option of limited fighters reduces your chance of survival, not to mention the many months of training to fly a ship that suddenly is not what you trained for!!!! |
Trojanman190
Murder-Death-Kill
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 13:16:00 -
[1365]
Its not gona happen. never before has the entire community been so against an awful idea. This isn't like the damp nerf where there are people for and against, this is almost everyone who plays eve telling CCP that this idea is just stupid.
It won't happen. CCP has made a bussiness of listening to us and trying to solve our problems. They won't do this.
|
Yaay
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 13:17:00 -
[1366]
As an FC of one of the biggest alliances in this game... I've been on both sides of the problem. I've had fleets with massive carrier support and fleets w/o any capitals go up against carriers. I've watched 120 man gangs with 6 carriers and a mom on their side lose to 90 of us without capitals at all in a jammed system. I've watched these fights on numerous occasions. I've also gone into a system of 840 with 80 capitals on either side and fought it out there... both fleets in system, enemies already on the battle grid.
My conclusion is this... there is not one fear I have of a Carrier fleet, a numbers game, or any of that garbage. We fight, we win, we dominate. That's the typical result of fleets I've lead, or been lead in.
Countering a 100 man carrier gang isn't undoable, it's no worse than any other blob tactic in game, and you seem to fail at reducing fleet sizes already. This idea has nothing to do with reducing the number of carriers in any fleet, nor should it, they actually add a fun element to fleets that wasn't there before.
Removing their offense will remove them from the battlefield and we will either see a replacement of ship, from carrier to bs b/c the carrier is pointless, or we'll see carriers sit around pos again. REMOTE REPPING ANYTHING LESS THAN A CAPITAL DOES NOT WORK, NOR IS IT AT ALL, IN ANY WAY, FUN.
There is nothing wrong with the carrier function, whatsoever. Right now you're trying to carve a Jade statue by molding clay. IT MAKES NO ******* SENSE WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING.
|
Kronn Blackthorne
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 13:19:00 -
[1367]
Originally by: Trojanman190
..... CCP has made a bussiness of listening to us and trying to solve our problems. They won't do this.
are we playin the same game ?
The Frenchy |
Ravens Viking
Caldari Murky Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 13:20:00 -
[1368]
No way ccp, I've spent loads of isk and months of training to fly carriers.
If you must reduce fighter numbers by 50% then you at least have to double there damage.
Please take note of what players say!!!! its our game. |
Idara
Caldari Contraband Inc. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 13:22:00 -
[1369]
I have no valuable input beyond I'm just about finished my carrier training and I didn't pay 400m for a skillbook alone for a glorified Dominix.
Also, pimping the sig. ---
in EVE - Idara |
Breathing
Mork Incorporated
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 13:24:00 -
[1370]
I'd like to add my vote to the "leave it alone" pile.
Theres nothing wrong with solo damage for Carriers as for starters they cost 10 times as much so if you want to go solo in them the loss is potentially so much greater - especially as getting tackled and damped isnt that difficult if you're on your own. Doesnt matter how many fighters you control, a handful of damps and its absolutely no advantage at all.
Not to mention the ease of popping fighters with a bit of co-ordination from the oposition.
Their logistics roles have been enhanced already by recent changes, and I think you should just leave it at that.
Motherships are a slightly different kettle of fish, just because its so much harder to tackle them, especially in lowsec... but theres been plenty of demonstrations recently of how vulnerable they can be when caught out without the right support.
So in short, these caps are already vulnerable if caught out solo. I dont think you need to do anything else to reduce their solo damage output.
|
|
Xaen
Caldari Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 13:25:00 -
[1371]
Holy crap that sucks.
And to think I was going to train for a carrier. Glad I didn't seriously start, they just got ruined. ----------- Support fixing the EVE UI |
ER0X
Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 13:29:00 -
[1372]
Originally by: Jane Spondogolo Some good arguments,... Some poor arguments
YouÆve missed the point completely. What is this balance or what is this notion of balance that youÆre championing here? This game is about pure capitalistic greed fuelled murder and mayhem not fairness and equality. ItÆs in effect swimming in a shark pool of dark political war filled coveting.
These ideas presented affect everyone beginning with solo players, the small corps to the larger more established corps from RSF to GBC. That is larger Alliances and groups of alliances. Larger corps and alliances would adapt to it as they always do. Why is it even a discussion in the first place? Solo players and smaller corps wonÆt have the same ability to adapt to such a change.
FYI fighters have a real hard time tracking anything smaller than a BS and anything smaller than and including a BS can simply drive away from them even take them for a drive around whichever system they are deployed in. If the fighters are chasing their last known target around a system this removes them from the grid btw. They can be recalled of course but in a laggy environment you could loose your fighters, or take someoneÆs fighters for a drive, for anything up to 30 mins and thatÆs from something as arbitrary as the target ship going for a drive around. ItÆs not about the elite. There is no way a carrier pilot could kill a 6 month old interceptor genius. If it can then he/she wasnÆt an interceptor genius at all just another idle claim.
The question you raise isnÆt about balance. ItÆs about lag and itÆs a fair one but to remove the defensive capabilities of a ship class to satiate the desire for lag reduction is an absurdity.
|
Sonos SAGD
Black Eclipse Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 13:32:00 -
[1373]
Just to say it again if it hasn't been said
15 fighters will make the same lag if controled by 1 person or 3 people
|
Matthew
Caldari BloodStar Technologies
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 13:33:00 -
[1374]
Originally by: Lazuran So ... basically aside from the lag issue (which they don't want to admit?), CCP are also afraid of keeping the Carrier / Mothership as the natural upgrade path of the Battleship since this would mean that more and more people would have them and use them as "larger battleships".
This raises a few questions:
- what else should we do? wait for T2 battleships? pimp our battleships with faction gear (and get owned by the next 1 battleship + 1 recon gang)? leave the game after 7 months (which is still what CCP occasionally claim that the average player does)?
Put your question the other way - what do you do when you're all in carriers/moms? Quit after 17 months? How is that a solution? Just escalating up bigger and bigger as a career path is a really bad way of going. It just leads to newer players being increasingly obsolete. In other games it would eventually result in new players starting at level eleventy-billion, and an entry-level weapon being the sword-of-ultra-pwnage +5000. I for one do not want eve going in that direction.
Capital ships were always supposed to be a specialised group path, not just a generic next-size-up upgrade. Your career path is to develop as a player, not just as a collection of skillpoints, in order to use those specialised functions. Yes, that means working in groups, and not just your comfortable all-cap-ship super-player group.
Having capital ships require smaller accompanying ships to be fully effective keeps the younger players (who are still in the vast majority) relevant and useful throughout the high-end game. If this is not maintained, in another year there will be zero role for non-capital pilots apart from as cyno alts and suicide attacks on cyno jammers. This is the direction CCP have seen we're going in, and it's that which they are trying to stop.
Originally by: Lazuran - don't people lose enough motherships and carriers already? it's not like a carrier is easy to replace (well it's easier if you let people sell GTCs as much as they like..), not to mention motherships with officer gear.
This isn't about how many get lost - if anything, this would mean fewer are lost, because fewer are used. It will move them back to high-value centres of the fleet, rather than replacing battleships as the cannon fodder.
To fill this role, carriers really need the following properties:
1) No significant improvement in solo performance compared to a battleship, at least offensively. Their survivability needs to be enough to allow support to help them out, but their offence limited so that they will not plough through their attackers any better than a battleship would. You're still better off in that you'll last a lot longer, but you're not a pwnmobile straight upgrade from the battleship.
2) Significantly improved performance in a gang. Through fighter delegation, gang mods, logistics ability. This is where we come to the really key point though:
2a) Improved performance in a gang when grouped with non-capital ships. This is a key point. The general logistics and gang bonuses work just as well (or even better) if you're a gang full of carriers as if you're a carrier leading battleships. If a proposal doesn't include this point, it will not prevent carrier blobs, no-matter how badly you nerf their solo ability.
This is the key thing that the fighter changes achieve, and is why I support the change.
That's not saying I don't think there's room for tweaking though.
Is 5 fighters too few to mount a basic defence? I don't know. By "basic", I'm talking holding off 1, maybe 2 Battleships max, and that will mostly be achieved through your superior tank rather than damage.
Could the delegation mechanism use improvement. Sure. Having to farm out fighters like that sounds like a micro-management nightmare.
So, lets find a solution to that. ------- There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines. |
Okotomi Anki
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 13:34:00 -
[1375]
Zulupark, we all pay your company 20 bucks per month to run the cluster. How much would you like us to pay You personally for just sitting still and doing nothing? Name your price, we will pay.
|
Matthew
Caldari BloodStar Technologies
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 13:34:00 -
[1376]
My thinking would be along the lines of a "non-delegated delegation". I know it sounds strange, but bear with me.
As a carrier, you would be able to "bind" ganged battleships (or other non-capital ships) into your drone control system. This would give you the same capacity boost as if you had delegated fighters to that battleship, but retains the fighters under your control. You could of course still delegate if you wanted to, but it would not be necessary to do so to realise the bonus from being ganged with the non-capital ships.
Obviously there would be limits like no ship can be "bound" to 2 different carriers at the same time, the bound ships have to be in the same grid as the carrier for the bonus to count, no binding to any old ship without their consent (e.g. no binding to the battleships attacking you! though ganged ships could be assumed to consent) etc to avoid various cheezy abuses.
From an RP point of view, this could be explained in a similar way to the model of computers and USB hubs. The computer keeps control of all the devices, but needs USB hubs plugged in to allow it to make enough connections. Similarly, you could argue that while the carrier systems are capable of co-ordinating a large number of fighters at once, too many control signals from the same ship would interfere with each other, so the carrier needs to route some through the transmitters of it's escorts.
Similarly, there are issues with the effectiveness of capital remote repping on things smaller than capitals. As pointed out in the thread already, they simply don't have enough HP to survive sustained fire long enough to get repped properly.
But again, I'm sure we can find a solution to that.
One thing that comes to mind is the concept of over-repairing. Specifically, allowing the remote repairer to boost the target ships HP over and above their maximum for a short time. The HP would decay back to the maximum over time, it would act like a buffer for the immediate fight but not let you save it up as a nasty surprise for later. The decay rate would increase the further above your max HP you went to prevent you building up ridiculous levels of HP while still allowing you enough of a boost to actually make remote repping worthwhile.
This wouldn't just boost carrier logistics, it would be a boost for all escorting of smaller ships by larger ones, where the problem has always been one of getting the escorted ship alpha-striked out from under you. It would be tricky to balance, but potentially great if done right. ------- There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines. |
Morpheus Solo
Minmatar Koshaku Interstellar Starbase Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 13:34:00 -
[1377]
This will be an absolute goodbye eve if that happens for me. Been in game for 3.5 years and are basically maxed out completely in all carrier and support carrier skills.
What is proposed will make it impossible to use a carrier solo, not only that forget about ratting on the rare occasion i do that.
And for the love of god what makes you think carriers are overpowered. Yes youre right, carrier meeting BS, BS dies if he gets tackled. The carrier cost 10 times as much, skill training is several months more to fly, not mentioning to fly efficiently, so what is the problem.
Killing a solo carrier is easy, in my opinion too easy, a tackler, a dampener, 3-4 BS for damage and its dead. Thats about 1/3 isk for the killing side. How is that overpowered.
You made a nerf for getting carriers go frontline, fine i agree with that one, but removing the ability of the carrier pilot to control his own fighters will take all the fun away of flyign a carrier. If you nerf it such that a carrier can not do more DPS than a BS, whats the ******* point, excuse my language. Also consider that movement of carriers will become more or less impossible, they would be defenceless.
|
Shira d'Radonis
Amarr Minmatar United Freedom Front Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 13:35:00 -
[1378]
Personally, I'd like to see a logistics capital ship. However, I wouldn't want that to be Carriers. It really makes no sense whatsoever!
Carriers should be responsible for dealing damage to the enemy, and they should require fleets to support them. I know that there's a reluctance to closely parallel the functions of ships with the real world, but it also doesn't really make a lot of sense to have something that can load up and deploy combat vehicles but ultimately only has a support role. And if the ship itself is to have a support role, it ought to be supporting its own fighters.
A logistical ship, on the other hand, should have very limited damage capability, but a quick locking speed (for gang members only?). You could even give them a bonus of +10% locking speed of gang members per level or something. -----------------------------------------------
ôàquod ad ius naturale attinet, omnes homines aequales suntö
"Our histories, one day, will absolve me..." - Shira d'Radonis
|
Kronn Blackthorne
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 13:35:00 -
[1379]
if it s just an " upgrade " to battleship , why does it include capital components which are really expensive
The Frenchy |
Attack Dog
Caldari Terran Robotics Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 13:37:00 -
[1380]
IF U ARE INTENT ON NERFING SUPERCAPS AND EVERYTHIGN ELSE THAT IS GD IN THE GAME CAN U PLZ JUST SH**T URSELF. NERFING DOSEN'T SWOLVE PROBLEMS ITS CREATES NEW ONES. ARE THE GREAFING MOTHERSHIPS THAT MUCH OF A PROBLEM, THEY ARE NOT INVINCABLE, CAPITAL SHIPS ARE ALREADY FRAGILE, DON'T TAKE AWAY FROM CAPITAL SHIPS THE CAPITAL FIREPOWER. TAKE 2 TURRETS OFF DREADS THEN, NO CLONE VATS ON TITANS, HALF THE FRIEGHTERS CARGO CAPACITY, DOUBLE THE COST OF THE SKILLS IN ISK.
NERFS ARE BAD M'KAY
------sig starts here------ Don't be a noob, stop whinning 4 nerf's 2day |
|
Aerick Dawn
Gallente The Arrow Project Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 13:38:00 -
[1381]
This is by far the dumbest idea you guys have had. The drone interface doesnt even report them being damaged when they are assigned still.
I love my alliance mates, but dude, I am not going to trust them with millions upon millions worth of my hardware.
Stupid idea CCP.
Also, mom pilots didn't pay 30+ billion isk for their ships to dole fighters out and sit outside a pos.
STUPID STUPID STUPID.
__________________ If I'm in a fair fight, i've done something terribly wrong. |
mamolian
M. Corp M. PIRE
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 13:40:00 -
[1382]
Lot of new changes to adapt to.. none of which I'm particularly happy about..
CCP I'd like to list some epic failures, that have somehow wormed their way into this beautiful game.
The Interdictor.. I ******* hate this ship class with a passion.. I hold it singularly responsible for the way the game has developed. Removing ability to assign fighters inside POS force field. Proposed 20% refine tax on "mineral compression BPO's" The Rorqual.. dont even get me started.. Proposed changes to max number of fighters controlable by carrier or mothership.. Proposed changes to interceptor scramble range. Proposed heavy interdictor. Black ops battleships, jump drive, jump portal warp while cloaked.. (only saving feature being their going to cost a ****in ****load) Proposed changes to cloaking.
-------------------------------
|
Z'kario
Dirty Deeds Corp. Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 13:41:00 -
[1383]
such a stupid idea. wth did we dedicate all this training too
|
1Of9
Gallente The Circle STYX.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 13:43:00 -
[1384]
Originally by: Okotomi Anki Zulupark, we all pay your company 20 bucks per month to run the cluster. How much would you like us to pay You personally for just sitting still and doing nothing? Name your price, we will pay.
LOL
I'll gladly help pay for his nothingness :D
|
Jaleera Kaisin
Amarr Eve Defence Force Praesidium Libertatis
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 13:44:00 -
[1385]
Hmm a few months ago CCP was
Quote: "Well - lets get Carriers out of POS because we want them to be front line ships not just logistics boats"
In came changes, No more sitting in POS while assigning fighters, no more carrying ships with containers in them etc
Now - when carriers ARE being used on the front lines it is:
Quote: Well actually we don't want them to be used like this so we'll take away your offensive ability and make you REALLY big logistics boats - oh, but you won't be able to do it as well as a logistics cruiser
Seriously CCP - you do this constantly but if this goes through it will be about the worst Time cost change you have made in terms of peoeple wasting skill training for a purpose that becomes obsolete.
NOS - yeah, can live with that (not too much time spent training) Speed nerf yeah, can live with that (not too much time spent training) Carriers - Heck no - that is at least 8 months of specific skilling for a specific reason
Make carriers unable to assign fighters, take away their ability to remote rep, make them DEPENDANT on suupport to stay alive, not the other way around.
Only way to make them useful logistics is to allow insurance of fighters, fix cap and triage and ensure that they can target friendlies quickly in a lag situation.
Personally I CAN fly a carrier, but am too damn scared to fly it anywhere on it's own without support as they are too easily taken down. With only Adv Drone interfacing III, Gallente carrier IV and Fighters III I am probably 6-8 months away from being a useful COMBAT carrier pilot.
Training time for these things is 2 years (more or less) and this change would make a Domi more effective in combat as well as more cost effective by a factor of 10+
Please reconsider.
|
Yttriun
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 13:45:00 -
[1386]
Sorry mate, dont agree with your idea. If I'm not mistaken eve and the majority of ships are based on our modern day navies, so let me ask you...can you imagine a carrier that can only feild 5 aircraft to defend itself without support? Utterly Ridiculous.
You guys need to stop nerfing the ships as a solution to imbalance and start creating other alternatives to enrichen the game, instead of always pulling back, drive forward and challenge the frontiers.
Fleet battles with multiple carriers ...even just watching is hell fun, so much though goes into the tactics its do or die most times...as it should be, bigger ships, bigger risks.
Bad idea, bad, bad, bad.
|
Lucifer66
Gallente DEATHFUNK Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 13:47:00 -
[1387]
So is this what EVE has become? If you can't beat a more experienced player in a more skill intensive and expensive ship all you do is complain on the forums till they nerf that class of ship? Cuz you don't wanna work to get something nice yerself you just cry till the devs give you your way.
That's really sad. Stop and think about that for a minute...that means later when you can fly that ship you will be no better off for all that training. So quit sniveling about your weak skills and incompitence and train and learn how to play like the rest of the players do.
|
Maxima Maxi
Pink Bunnies C0VEN
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 13:49:00 -
[1388]
Like i said before, if u want to reduce lag then make carriers and moms use 5 fighters but change their resists, hp and dmg to equal what they can do now. simple
|
The Economist
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 13:49:00 -
[1389]
Idea:
If you are dead set on the idea of creating some kind of mechanic to encourage players to delegate their fighters (ignoring for a minute your other motivation, namely an unwarranted dmg reduction), why not try some positive reinforcement instead of a nerf?
What about giving some kind of bonus to delegated fights?
One idea would be to allow some of the drone skills of the pilot fighters are delegated to to apply to the fighters.
Or maybe their leadership skills?
Haven't given it much thought, but might be worth looking at.
Sig removed. Please keep sigs to 400x120 pixels and 24000 bytes in size or less. -Kaemonn |
beatit
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 13:49:00 -
[1390]
The biggest logistics ship is going to born!
And the Gallente carriers/mom ship become more weaker,"5% bonus to deployed fighter damage per level" make no sense as they just can deployed 5 fighters.
Caldari/Amarr carriers got a great resistances of shield/armor,Minmatar ones got a great bonus of logistics, leaving the Gallente ones got a damage bonus.
|
|
Xaen
Caldari Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 13:49:00 -
[1391]
Originally by: Idara I have no valuable input beyond I'm just about finished my carrier training and I didn't pay 400m for a skillbook alone for a glorified Dominix.
Also, pimping the sig.
Also, proudly pimping the sig now. --
Support fixing the EVE UI
|
Sonos SAGD
Black Eclipse Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 13:52:00 -
[1392]
hey i just thought of something
if this goes through the minnie carrier will be the most Uber carrier in the game
you laughed at are pathetic 5% time per levl then you said that the 5% amount was good enough
but now thats all we will be able to do
|
Enosh Kerrim
Seraphin Technologies Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 13:54:00 -
[1393]
Its all in the theory, but usually the big fight about the major systems take part with lokal numbers of 600+ even launching ur fighters in a mess like that takes ages and if u have to assign them ( in case of a mom ) to 3 ppl u might finsih that after 2-3 hours. This is no complaining its reality. Also theres no reason anymore just to field 1 of this supercaps anymore .Why risk about 15b + a lot of more isk (u need to build them in a pos and this is not for free)in a fight if 4 carriers would bring the same benefit even if they got nerved too. You dont have to be a prophet to see what will happen no supercaps anymore in a direct fight and not even close to a pos to assign fighter to ur m8¦s. The benefit of imunity vs electronic warfare is pointless then . It would be nice if the dev¦s try to be a bit more cßrefull about what they introduce into this game and dont fix things that much if they find out ppl use stuff different as they were expected to. In this case a lot of ppl worked very hard and skilled long time to use/build something , which maybe becomes now a hughe amount of minerals stuck in useless ship wating for beeing refined.
|
RossP Zoyka
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 13:55:00 -
[1394]
Perhaps, to make this change more palatable you allow Carriers and Motherships the ability to carry Assault Frigates.
It would be a cool AF boost and Carrier MS nerf. A compromise to the players if you will.
|
Sinder Ohm
Infinite Improbability Inc Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 13:58:00 -
[1395]
Ok so you are going to reduce the direct damage dealt by MS and carriers DRASTICALLY.
You may aswell do the full monty and give all BS and BC only 2 - 4 weapon points so that BS are balanced again with MS and carriers. Comon you know you want to do it break your own game.
Originally by: Karanth Wimps play empire. Real men play in 0.0. Hardcore masochists live out in drone space.
|
Faridah
Solar Storm Sev3rance
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 13:59:00 -
[1396]
Doh..
This topic is going at armageddon-day speed. I've not read all pages, but will try to put down some contructive ideas in here. The point of the blog was to get carriers into a more supportive role instead of just being the extra DPS needed to hammer down the enemy. The way to do that is to encourage(sp) people to take on the supportive role, not put all sorts of obsticklses in their way when trying to do what you outline in your blog.
First, lets see why there is so few using them as support-ships today, which should have been done already by someone(tm) imo.
1: Carriers don't have the cap recharge to keep remote reppers going and the same time keeping 1 repper going for itself. I got maxed cap-skills, and to make this possible I got 3 CCC and 4*T2 cap-rechargers. Gives me a bit of buffer vs neut-ships. Maybe look at fitting req on the capital remote modules also... Ok, I only have cap remote repper 3, but you get the picture.
2: Dampening. Carriers today can be damped by a single frig and ALL your remote repair modules in high are rendered useless. We don't want to fit modules we never use and go the Smartbomb / drone control way instead. Even when not dampened you can forget about repping anything smaller than a BS as it'll be dead a long time before you get lock. Get 2 damps on you and you are totally useless. Pray that your 'support' can beat the enemy without your help. (For going into triage mode see 4)
3: Buff armor/shield repair drones. We might field those instead of the fighters/drones.
4: Modify the Triage module. If we want to suicide our carriers we just rat with them in HED-GP.
There you go.. 4 more out of 10 carrier pilots will use the ship as support for dreads/BS in a fight.
Then reduce the number of fighters *slowly*, taking away half to 3/4 of a ships damage output is a serious wack with the bat. Try doing that to cruise missiles.
Doing just this: 1: Reduce number of controllable drones and fighters to 5.
Would lead to: 'Wait, let get my Dominix, because it outdamage a carrier anyway, and I almost gain ISK by loosing it.' And carriers will just be used for afk mining-tanks and cosmic anomalties.
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:01:00 -
[1397]
Edited by: Kerfira on 22/10/2007 14:01:53 I tried looking into the future a bit after this nerf, and what I saw in my crystal ball was this dev blog.
Originally by: Future Dev Blog Hi, I'm Zalapurk and recently transferred from the Quality Assurance department to the Game Design team. IÆve been with CCP for just under two years now and donÆt plan on going anywhere. Say hello to your newest balancer (I still haven't received a nerfbat though).
I'm posting here now because the last few days we've been looking at the way battleships are functioning on Tranquility, and to be honest weære a little concerned with the direction itæs taking.
What we want is pretty basic: We want to make battleships more reliant on their support fleet and less of a direct nber deathbringer.
How are we going to do it?
Well, we have an idea, and before you go ballistic remember that this is an idea and weære still working on it:
We plan on changing the way guns work, and have it so that you can still have all the guns you want (within limits of your ship/skills) but you can only directly fire 2 of them at a time. That means that a battleship can assign 2 guns to a gang mate, assign 2 more to another gang mate etc. etc.
This means you will NOT be able to fire 6/7/8 guns from a battleship and aim them all to incinerate a cruiser in .2 seconds. It does however mean that you can assign 2 guns to each of your lilæ friends in the fleet and use them as the messengers of your burning fury.
Remember, weære not messing with the final total amount of guns you can have, just the amount you can control and delegate at a time. You can of course also operate 2 guns and make them attack a target of your own choice, if it pleases you.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Inturist
Nuclear Reactor Inc INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:03:00 -
[1398]
Comon CCP - just look how many guys/girls giving u an idea what to do , allmost half of eve , listen please --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Buxaroo
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:04:00 -
[1399]
To show you how much of a so-called "I-WIN BUTTON" a carrier is, just check BoB's killboard for last night. That carrier we killed had 2 Capital Armor Reppers going. We broke his tank in under 2 minutes and he still had craploads of cap left. Besides the ships you see on the killmail, there were maybe another dozen more smaller ships involved in the killing with dampening/scrambling him etc. And he had brought out 12-13 fighters....we popped nearly all of them and we didn't even loose a ship (I don't remember anyone saying they did). He had NO support.
So please, tell me where this "I-WIN BUTTON" is at? Even if we had only brought maybe 5 BS and a few dampening frigs, he would have died without support no matter how much faction gear he had. The point is that carriers/MS are already a setting duck and rendered useless with game mechanics already in place. There is no need to make this change.
Oh and this post is also to pimp my new sig :)
|
Gane Green
Gallente Dominus Imperium
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:04:00 -
[1400]
Bad idea if i cyno into lowsec for logistics and the cyno pilot cynoes to close to the statin Im screwed.
80km out of station with nothing but only 5 fighters it would be a dead carrier.
15 fighters gives me at least a fighting chance to get the heck out of there but hell im sensor dampened to where I cant lock anyone anyway. My carrier is not a solo pownmobile its a glorified hauler that has protection.
No dice to this. Dont do it.
If god was a number he would be over 9,000!!!!!!!!! |
|
Seishomaru
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:04:00 -
[1401]
Originally by: Sonos SAGD Just to say it again if it hasn't been said
15 fighters will make the same lag if controled by 1 person or 3 people
CCp already said. This is NOT about lag. Strange how some people in past few months were able to swer that carriers didnt create lag, and nwo to defend their carriers they say new system will create as much lag as current one. CCP already said, this change is NOT about lag.
|
QuantumX
Minmatar Sicarri Covenant
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:06:00 -
[1402]
U sir, Zulupark, should return to the testing department. These ideas are insane, you want to change a drone based dhip that by CCp's on info says are drone fielding machine into an expensive Dominix that can assign drones to toher players.
1. the IU for drones is crap and doing this quickly and effectively while jumping into a fight is impossible.
2. To be able to field 15 fighters in a carrier is a VERY heavy skill intensive activity, and most people dont go past 10 when in a fleet supporting setup. And well a carrier should be able to lauch 10 fighters AND use them.
3. Carrier ships are not solo pawning machines, a malus can make them ineffective for god sake.
4. Motherships cost 25billion+ and you complain it can kill a battleship solo, eerrr i hope it fricking could.
5. Mother ships and carrier being able to use only 5 drones, the same has a cruiser, again are you insane, limits are fine, but if you want to do this then just remove them from game.
Most nerf whines on these forums are about the use of capitals in low sec, i can see the point of banning motherships from this space, make sense, but logistically smaller corps like to use work from low sec, so just limit them to 0.1 or something. Even make the lauching of fighters in empire space a criminal act and have concorde respond or something.
As for fighters, make their sigs bigger to make them more vulerable, but for god sake make em 20% cheaper.
I'm not part of a big allaince, but carrier as an example are great for small gang PvP, which is said to be something ccp want more off, yet these changes again force to BLOB!!!
Try again, good sir, if these even make it to test, you going to kill all but major fleet use of these ships.
========================== I came i saw i got blown up!
|
Viqer Fell
Minmatar Trinity Nova KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:07:00 -
[1403]
Sorry to say but I have to agree with the majority of the 54 pages of this thread.
I agree that Capitals shoudl be more reliant on support but there are many other ways to change the carrier than the proposed knee jerk quick fix that you have come up with.
off the top of my head
1 - Take away the drone control module and make it an assault frigate only module that acts like a remote tracking link and limit the range to 5km.
2 - Make the carrier unable to lock other ships without a remote tracking link from say a logistics ship or a T1 Cruiser.
Give the ships linked to the Carrier a much higher gang bonus so the carrier cannot be defanged in seconds
Those are probably not very great ideas but tbh theyre a little better than simply gimping the ship and forcing you to become more reliant on giving your 200m of fighters to gang mates then relying on lag not to lose them all for you in minutes.
If the problem is the ships being solowtfpwnmobiles in low sec to use a phrase i dislike then make it so that dictor bubbles become "signature tuned" so they only bubble war targets or -5's (plus your own gang ofc).
How about making it so that carriers and moms can only launch fighters and drones when in Triage mode thus making it muc much harder for them to fight without truly committing to the fight.
This equates them then to Dreads which do ****ty dmg unless in siege mode.
There's a lot of good ideas in the last 54 pages and I just pray you dont stick your fingers in your ears and bring this change about whilst singing "la la la la la we can't hear you!"
Click here to visit our site
|
Matthew
Caldari BloodStar Technologies
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:08:00 -
[1404]
Originally by: Ieu Duin Capital ships should be the deathbringers. That is what the combat capitals should be. Just like capital freighters should be the "stuffbringers."
No, dreads are the "deathbringers". Freighters are the "stuffbringers". Both have the weakness that they need non-capital support to cover their weak spots. Carriers are supposed to be the "boostbringers" (including the damage boost from dishing out fighters), enhancing your non-capital support to allow it to compete on a capital-level battlefield, without replacing it completely.
The problem is that currently, the carriers boost each other just as well (if not better) than they boost non-capital support. It's this that renders the carrier-blob the most attractive support fleet, shouldering out the non-capital support roles.
Originally by: Yttriun Sorry mate, dont agree with your idea. If I'm not mistaken eve and the majority of ships are based on our modern day navies, so let me ask you...can you imagine a carrier that can only feild 5 aircraft to defend itself without support? Utterly Ridiculous.
RL analogies really not the way to go here. Unless you want to give me a ship class that equates to the rubber dingy full of C4 that I can ram into your super-expensive warship while it's sitting in dock
Originally by: Yttriun Fleet battles with multiple carriers ...even just watching is hell fun, so much though goes into the tactics its do or die most times...as it should be, bigger ships, bigger risks.
They're cool for about 5 minutes, until the novelty of the bigger ship wears off and you realise that really it's no different from when you were pounding on each other in battleships, or cruisers, or frigs. Just the numbers in your stat boxes and the sparkle of your graphics have got a bit bigger.
It's the trap many, many games fall into that "bigger is better" always, and that trap leads to rolling obsolescence of the entry-level content. Capital and other top tiers should be something meaningfully different, not just an extra inch on the e-peen. ------- There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines. |
Haniblecter Teg
F.R.E.E. Explorer Atrum Tempestas Foedus
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:09:00 -
[1405]
I fully endorse the proposed change. ----------------- Friends Forever
Kill. BoB. Dead. |
Li via
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:09:00 -
[1406]
I cannot believe that after all the effort of training and skilling up to fly a mothership that you would not be able to effectively obliterate a ship that is 1/350th the cost. Now a mothership pilot is effectively stuck in his ship thanks to its inabliliy to dock, that pilot/character is effectively uselss for anything esle other than massive fleet combat and then only at the mercy of the rest of the people in the group for DPS. Why the hell would I fly a mothership if not to have a ****-ton of firepower at my disposal.... maybe the trade off is give me 9 citadel launchers then we are talking, but all the reward for the risk of building this thing is now effectively wasted.
If this change takes effect, I would like all of the skill points that I dedicated to the capital skills transfered to HAC / Recon skill as there is no point in training for spuercaps without having the reward of the firepower boost.... This is the sort of issue that causes long-term players to leave the game. Ask the SWG guys what happened when they nerfed their veterans... yeah game is a joke now.
|
RazorCRO
Caldari The Arrow Project Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:10:00 -
[1407]
Originally by: 1Of9
Originally by: Okotomi Anki Zulupark, we all pay your company 20 bucks per month to run the cluster. How much would you like us to pay You personally for just sitting still and doing nothing? Name your price, we will pay.
LOL
I'll gladly help pay for his nothingness :D
How about we pay CCP some extra money to give this guy his old job? That would be more productive...
|
John McFly
Ganja Labs Pure.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:10:00 -
[1408]
Epic fail. Minigin says I'm not allowed to post in limegreen. :-( |
Cpt Fina
Mutually Assured Distraction
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:11:00 -
[1409]
Damn, people like to whine allot.
Constructive suggestions:
1. Keep the carrier as it is but increase damage dealt by fighters assigned to a gangmate by 5-10%
2. Increase repamount when using repair/shieldboost drones
3. Increase scanresolution and targetingrange
4. Reduce damage dealt by fighters by 5-10% when the carrier fields them solo.
|
framolia
The Fated Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:12:00 -
[1410]
As someone who has just spent 6 months training for a carrier, I must say if this goes ahead, I will be utterly dissapointed!
May aswell give me a Jump Drive for a Domi.
Have some sense, send this guy back to his old job and save out Carriers and Mom's.
"My opinions are my own and not of my corp or alliance!" |
|
Maxima Maxi
Pink Bunnies C0VEN
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:12:00 -
[1411]
Well if they want to make carriers to be teethless cats then thats not what i got my alt for, can i have my isk back?
|
faltzswher
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:13:00 -
[1412]
Edited by: faltzswher on 22/10/2007 14:13:12 Yay now I can solo carriers in my raven \o/
oh wait uber tank moros at a gate with sentries :s - oh well carebear dream one day soon....
|
Miz Cenuij
Caldari Simply Smacktackular
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:15:00 -
[1413]
54 pages in and the threadnought of hate continues to grow...
[/center]
"Men are going to |
ArmyOfMe
hirr Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:17:00 -
[1414]
Originally by: Tzrailasa Is the problem blobbing? Sorry, but you created THIS problem yourselves! Shootable POS structures and station services ensured it. Add the fact that the ONLY counter to a blob is a bigger blob, and you have the mess that is fleet warfare now. Removing carriers from the game will not make this go away.[*]
At worst, I think you haven't got a clue about 0.0 warfare....
Originally by: Tzrailasa
So in essence, you're admitting you don't know BY EXPERIENCE what you're talking about???
This is the same complaint a lot of people here has about Zuluparks 'fix'. It simply doesn't make ANY sense to anyone who've tried to fight in the lagged out blob-hell that is todays 0.0 warfare experience.
Carriers didn't make this blob-hell.... CCP did by their design decisions....
Qft
|
Clamn8er
Refuge of the Damned
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:18:00 -
[1415]
Originally by: Nytemaster
Originally by: Jane Spondogolo Edited by: Jane Spondogolo on 22/10/2007 12:42:59 Well, since this thread is stacked with bug eyed carrier nuts, theres hardly little room for rational disussion of the topic.
...
And I remind the 2yo capship pilots that you have *no idea* how hard it is to be a newer player in 0.0. When you where one, you didn't have to put up with the bull**** your subjecting newbies to now.
/signed
Best post in this thread thus far. (Haven't read ALL of it though)
Hm. How is that the best quote??
Just because the two of you clearly cannot use / have no idea how to deal with carriers, this is not a reason to nerf them. Try and LEARN instead.
I drive a pink BMW with a (seatbelted) teddy bear in the passenger seat. I play Abba at maximum volume. That's the way I like it. So unless I'm packing an Uzi and two hand grenades, I try not to venture into the bad parts of town, cos I'm likely to get laid out flat. Word of advice ... Do the same. |
USS OMAHA
Gallente THE INQUISITI0N
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:21:00 -
[1416]
Edited by: USS OMAHA on 22/10/2007 14:21:13
Quote: Zulupark makes his introductory Dev Blog from his new position in the Game Design team.
Well 55 pages in, I'm sure he's pretty much looking forward to getting a new position in CCP cos so far it's not looking promising. Possibly somewhere where he can't affect my game. How about that whitewolf card game thingy you guys have going on for kids, either that or tell him to clear the cache in the creative side of his brain and reboot.
Only Joking
|
Max Teranous
Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:22:00 -
[1417]
Let's face it. A mothership should not have less dps than a rorqual when using drones. The concept is insane.
And pimping the sig
Max
--------------------
|
Deacon Ix
Ascendant Strategies Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:23:00 -
[1418]
From an RP/RL/logical viewpoint nerfing as a whole is just dumb,
If an OMGWTFPWN weapon comes along what happens is that a counter is produced,
Arrows Plate Armour Castles Catapults Cannons Battleships (Ironclads) Submarines ect
even up to Nukes for which there are various conuters proposed/avaliable (IIRC Starwars being one)
Rather than the whole Nerf waggon moving the goal posts after many players have spent alot of time and Iskies, bring in a counter.
tho TBH a small squad of BS can take out a Carrier, Moms are different - the only issue I see is the use of super caps in low sec, there are various RP reasons for keeping SC's out of low sec Established Empires wouldn't allow any ship of that size in their soverin space, The huge mass of these ships can upset planetry climets with their gravity and certianly governments wouldn't like some pod pilot to cause a tidal wave and wipe out their tax payers...
and pimp the sig...
|
Haniblecter Teg
F.R.E.E. Explorer Atrum Tempestas Foedus
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:23:00 -
[1419]
I fail to see the effectiveness of using a ton of carriers for a quick strike. A quick strike on what? Smaller ships? Caps outside the POS? What targets can carriers possibly attack quickly enough to make them useful, but not risk them unnecesarily to some lone ****ty tackler.
I do agree with the one poster who says this is a regression to getting carriers out of the POS. To counter that effct, they should strengthen the defense of carreirs, repper/resis boni, AND boost their remote bonuses to non-cap ships. IF they make carriers capable of giving BS's the ability to tank 1000+ dps--with the carrier being even better--than you may see small gangs utilizing a carrier more.
Hell, making the triage mode shorter + allow the use of fighters will prolly accomplish this effect ----------------- Friends Forever
Kill. BoB. Dead. |
Zareph
Minmatar Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:24:00 -
[1420]
Disclaimer: I can't fly a carrier, I've never flown a carrier, and I've never seen one in action. However, when I first heard 'there are carriers!' and one of the many reasons I joined the game vs. how they're actually implemented kinda changed my initial excitement.
To me, a carrier is a vessel that is huge, and holds other fighter craft that do most of its dirty work. Most of the items mounted to a carrier are point defense to keep the riff raff away, I'm thinking 'Battlestar Galactica' type of defense with AA and what not, few missle batteries etc.
What I don't really like the idea of is how carriers work. The fighters are basically fancy drones.
They're not real people. To me a carrier should have x amount of fighter bay space, and you have real live players dock up and prepare to launch out of the carrier. The carrier jumps in, the frigates/cruisers/small support craft (aka Raptors in BSG) fire out and kick butt, and hope the carrier survives the encounter so that they can dock and jump free. If the carrier goes, the real live players are royally screwed and have to jump gate back to wherever they came from.
Too me, that would make carriers exciting. otherwise as I understand it they're no more than a giant big drone thing and I view the nerf bat as a necessary evil. But if it could carry 10 - 30 (skill dependent) frigates and another 3 -5 support ships (skill dependent) *that* would be exciting from my point of view. While all answers are replies, not all replies are answers. |
|
Arekaine
Gallente 101 Industries Division of Eden
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:24:00 -
[1421]
Anything that promotes fleet ops tactics is a good thing __________________________________________________ Due to a fatal error. This program has been forced to close. Please restart to fix the problem. Any unsaved data will be lost........Sucks huh? |
Sinder Ohm
Infinite Improbability Inc Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:30:00 -
[1422]
Originally by: Kerfira Edited by: Kerfira on 22/10/2007 14:01:53 I tried looking into the future a bit after this nerf, and what I saw in my crystal ball was this dev blog.
Originally by: Future Dev Blog Hi, I'm Zalapurk and recently transferred from the Quality Assurance department to the Game Design team. IÆve been with CCP for just under two years now and donÆt plan on going anywhere. Say hello to your newest balancer (I still haven't received a nerfbat though).
I'm posting here now because the last few days we've been looking at the way battleships are functioning on Tranquility, and to be honest weære a little concerned with the direction itæs taking.
What we want is pretty basic: We want to make battleships more reliant on their support fleet and less of a direct nber deathbringer.
How are we going to do it?
Well, we have an idea, and before you go ballistic remember that this is an idea and weære still working on it:
We plan on changing the way guns work, and have it so that you can still have all the guns you want (within limits of your ship/skills) but you can only directly fire 2 of them at a time. That means that a battleship can assign 2 guns to a gang mate, assign 2 more to another gang mate etc. etc.
This means you will NOT be able to fire 6/7/8 guns from a battleship and aim them all to incinerate a cruiser in .2 seconds. It does however mean that you can assign 2 guns to each of your lilæ friends in the fleet and use them as the messengers of your burning fury.
Remember, weære not messing with the final total amount of guns you can have, just the amount you can control and delegate at a time. You can of course also operate 2 guns and make them attack a target of your own choice, if it pleases you.
HAHAHA thats gold great post dude!
Originally by: Karanth Wimps play empire. Real men play in 0.0. Hardcore masochists live out in drone space.
|
Princess Jodi
Vendetta Underground Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:33:00 -
[1423]
I say CCP fires Zulupark instead! Nerf the bastard right out of CCP!
I'm not even going to TRY to be civil about this! NO! Hell NO. MF'ing Hell NO!
|
Kublai Khan
Caldari TAOSP Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:34:00 -
[1424]
Tumbs up for CCP! What a marvellous idea!
I really hope CCP will listen to the community on this one and adress the problems and not screw over 1000's of thir subscribers.
I know many have pointed it out before, but lag is the hallmark of whats wrong with 0.0 space, not that carriers can field their own fighters. Screwing over them wont be helping this at all and at worst will make it worse:
Most capital pilots probably have 2-3-4-5 accounts that they do various things with. I have 3 capital chars spread about EVE to react to things at different locations. Of course I have non-capital chars as well. Today I log on one of my capital chars and fight on grid with that. So what will I be doing if these are the changes coming about. Ill log on my two carrier chars, put them at a pos, assign fighters to gang members, log on a battleship character and assign fighters to him as well. Noone will ever bother to fight with their carriers on grid with these changes, and with that at a pos then they can all play with their other chars and if killed, well, ill have some replacements in my carrier. It might end up having more ppl "calculations" on the grid, not to mention that if im at a pos ill fit 4 DCU's on my carrier and up the lag created by my carrier by 40%, and since i can use two...
But yeah, this will of course be easier for the defending party, we just have to meet up another hour before to just get the gang and fighters sorted (like we needed another new booring aspect for POS warfare). The attacking party if not allready in system will have no chance of assigning before jumping in (for instance while taking down cyno jammer).
What needs to be done is what others have pointed out but since you guys haven't explained what you're trying to fix...: - If lag: Reduce the amount of fighters that the carriers and mommas can yield, 5 for carrier and 10 for ms and compensate for their damage and hp. Make the Drone Control Units affect the HP and damage each fighter does instead of adding more fighters. This also makes targeting fighters when small carrier groups are present more efficient. - MS in low sec, well remove their ability to release drones. - To make them harder to kill and if you want to force ppl into using triage for something, remove the ability to use capital transfers of all kinds without going into triage, or make them lots worse outside of triage. Allthough everyone will target the minmatar one...
There are allready counters to fighters. I recall one battle we had against goons where they had fitted lots of smartbombs on their battleships and suddenly we were stuck down in feyathabolis with 5-6 fighters each... I dont want to think about the amount of isk that was lost in that minute they were nuked...
Another problem by ******* over carriers like this is whats going to prevent ppl from sieging with 50 dreads and nuke towers coming out of reinforced? Now carriers have a chance of making the opponent think twice about doing it, because the cost could be so high... Oh well, at least i can use T2 sentries on my moros if they go through with this...
Worst thing that happened to 0.0 PvP, beside POS warfare, is interdictors tho (as apparently this nerf is to make 0.0 warfare more fun?). They really ****** up the "small scalle" pvp aspect, cus its so easy for a bigger group to nuke a smaller coming through gates and screwing their pods as well. So ppl blob more and more. There were lots more tactics involved before. And the dumbest thing with it is the bubble that stays there and the dictor can just warp out, maybe you should change the "small" dictor to work the same ways as heavy dictors, or just let bubbles only keep capitals from jumping... Was more fun before when ppl had to go in and scramble instead of just duking it out from distance with 10 dictors hitting warp, bubble and warp out...
Good Job CCP! Linkage |
fire elf
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:34:00 -
[1425]
COME ON
i have soon a carriar and i whandt too get alots of fighters if they are removing the drones give them guns instead !! i dont like this at all
|
Lillandra Peregrine
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:35:00 -
[1426]
oh dear. I must say this is an awful idea. the majority of replies to this topic are right.
nerfing is not a way to solve perceived 'problems'. delicate balancing and tweaking is reasonable.
but you are proposing a change that will drastically affect the training time and investment of lots of people and negate the worth of one of the most effective ships in eve.
by your own logic : capital ships are being used way too much as better-than-battleships-at-killing-stuff ships
and there's a problem with that? what's wrong with a bigger and more expensive ship being better at a smaller and cheaper ship at killing stuff? you risk more and gain more don't you?
btw : the-ships-that-keep-other-ships-alive-and- provide-them-with-additional-firepower
I think those are logistics and command ships.
a carrier without support going against a well organized force is toast. it doesn't need such a drastic change as you are proposing. no offense but consider spending time improving the color scheme for the rev 3 gallente ships..? :)
|
velocity7
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:43:00 -
[1427]
I think that instead of forcing carriers to delegate, there should be a bonus to delegating the fighters instead. That way, delegating is greatly encouraged rather than forced.
|
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar MASS HOMICIDE Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:44:00 -
[1428]
People that is just saying no. Try to bring up some ideas also. Because fore sure something MUST be done to prevent this game becoming Capitals Online.
Maybe buff the battleships? Give BS a bit more of HP so they can survive long enough to do anything?
Maybe create a new module that for example gives 20% extra damage and 20% rof but with 20% tracking penalty (so would be useful against capitals only)
Limit fighters deployment in 1 per second ( example) to avoid the mom warp in target, you dead ....
If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough |
Prydeless
Vengeance of the Fallen
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:45:00 -
[1429]
That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. You suck if you do that and you suck in a big way! Freakin waste of time on all my skills for my carrier because if you do this you will nerf it back to the friggin stone age. omfg
Disclaimer: I am a God. |
Missy Saints
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:46:00 -
[1430]
NOOOOOOOOOO and her I am 3 days from a Thanatos, may have to go the moros route now..
|
|
Saladin
Minmatar Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:49:00 -
[1431]
This is a horrible idea. It completely renders carriers not worth the skill points and cash poured into them. Nevermind the fighters can't be launched from inside a POS, or that they are relatively ineffective against small ships. Fighters are easy to kill, and all this change does is allow carriers to be ganked more easily with no risk to the assaulting team. For many reasons now, the dominix would be looking far more attractive than a carrier after these changes. ----
|
The Fates
Caldari Perkone
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:50:00 -
[1432]
Meanwhile, back at CCP...
"56 pages of mostly hatemail and growing sir"
"excellent, full speed ahead"
"i think this future dev blog is a pretty good idea too"
"yes, yes i was just looking at that. we'll have to include that in a future patch"
"alright we're done here let's grab some drinks"
"kk"
"you think this change will be enough to maintain the balance of power?"
"I sure hope so, if it doesn't the next change will have to be really sick"
"lol"
"we're just going to have to cross our fingers"
"kk boss im thirsty"
"yeah, lets go"
__ Be content with your lot; one cannot be first in everything. --Aesop |
Valea
Wrath Of Khaine
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:52:00 -
[1433]
Originally by: velocity7 I think that instead of forcing carriers to delegate, there should be a bonus to delegating the fighters instead. That way, delegating is greatly encouraged rather than forced.
PFF, that would make sense and too many people would like it. What we really need is to have a carrier do less damage than a dominix with normal drones. And stop people from flying without support, since it isn't REALLY EASY to damp a solo carrier to hell with one ship.
CCP, I have stuck around for a lot of crap, but not this. Do not do it.
|
Manas
The Graduates Brutally Clever Empire
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:53:00 -
[1434]
Lots of over-the-top hate coming with respect to a rather modest suggested change.
It should be noted that a number of hidden carrier buffs are coming: * Better drone control, so that fighters won't warp away when the target does (and take forever to get back). * The inevitable sensor damp nerf.
A do hope a solution is found to keep the variety of combined arms in fleet battles (and thus a place for newer players to join in on 0.0 fun). Gangs of titans, Moms, and capships, are forcing the survivability and utility of non-capship players to nil. Multiple DDDs.. yeesh. Carriers and MOMs, even with this nerf, are going to be the ship to train for if you wish to participate in high-end 0.0 fleet battles.
-Manas Carrier pilot for nerfing supercap and cap ships
TGRAD info |
Larsonist
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:53:00 -
[1435]
Quote: 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.
Allrighty. try this.
1. Blobbling will still happen. you guys made the game, if you are competent you will see it will still. 2. Interfacing with fighters will become an issue with attacking forces. you guys made the game, if you are competent you will see it will only get worse. 3. Fighter damage does not translate back to the carrier pilot with delegated fighters properly, needs fixing. if you guys are competent, you will see this happens and will continue unless you fix it. 4. You are now wanting to make it so carrier/MOM pilots are FORCED to give our own assets to other players in the game. UNACCEPTABLEif you guys are competent, you will see that this is also a major flaw in the "idea". with the price of fighters, its no different than forcing corps/alliances to loaning tier one battleships to mates so they can have damage dealing vessesl. X5 fighters = 100 million isk. unfortunately, fighters die much faster than battleships pending on situation. our assets should be ours 5. MAJOR POINT. you guys added these ships into the game. if you are/were competent IN THE LEAST you should have realized the power and capabilities of these vessels. you guys left them ingame this long, and now they are being potentially altered dramatically.
I hope this post ****ed some of you off CPP. WHY? because 50+ pages later and you are STILL saying we are whining about losing our iwin buttons? WTF is a 30 billion isk ship? i would hope to h*l* it IS a force to be reckoned with. i mean for %%%* sake guys, a pilot in a mothership is BOUND to it guys! what is he going to do when there is no support? You want him to just log on and sit safely behind a pos shield on off days with alliances/corps arent doing anything? NO, he is going to do logistics or gate camp .4 systems or have a good time. Now, he will have a totally useless vessel, along with carriers, until its time to pos hug and delegate fighters in defense. NO ONE in their right mind will jump into a major capital fight now due to the lag that is apparent with a carrier or MOM.
if you implement this, you will alienate those wanting and owning capital carrier/MOM vessels. If you implement this, i can promise a "day of pigs" on your income. If you implement this, you are only proving the point that you want your game to become World of Wimps 2.
rant off
|
Owi
Es and Whizz Hedonistic Imperative
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:55:00 -
[1436]
if you do ..better rename carrier to "Little freigther with jumpability" *coughs
right now if you catch a carrier solo, it mostly dont even stand vs a good gang. with 5 fighter ..hmm may try tank`m and watch how it goes down.
My EvE-Files.com folder !
|
velocity7
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:56:00 -
[1437]
Originally by: Valea
Originally by: velocity7 I think that instead of forcing carriers to delegate, there should be a bonus to delegating the fighters instead. That way, delegating is greatly encouraged rather than forced.
PFF, that would make sense and too many people would like it.
QFT
|
Ryan Darkwolf
Amarr Viziam
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:57:00 -
[1438]
There was once a great saying...it went something like this, and I quote:
"You're not supposed to feel like you're logging in to a happy, happy, fluffy, fluffy lala land filled with fun and adventures, that's what hello kitty online is for."
Ive seen way too many nerfs in the 3 years I've played (my character age lies) Titan nerf I understood...NOS nerf I was willing to live with even though it was a drastic change for some players...this carrier change..I understand but don't see what is being accomplished... I have tanked fighters in a battle ship so I can assure you that a formation of fighters can't take it out in .2 secs.
CCP please fix the lag and other bugs and issues at the moment. Worry about making the game more like Hello Kitty once all the 16 year olds and younger get bored of WOW ------------------- I had a moderated siggy once...but then I pwned it...just like this
Originally by: CCP Wrangler So, now everyone is in here drooling about our fit for female t-shirts... |
Cadela Fria
Amarr Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:57:00 -
[1439]
Originally by: Malachon Draco
Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't know 2003 players had to fight battles with enemy titans who could wipe out entire grids, or face 30+ carriers and 10+ moms while they were establishing their little space empires...
2003 people competed with each other too, but if what you're asking is for current new players to experience the same playing field 2003 players were, then that's just rediculous (sp?). You'd have to remove all ships except T1 battleships, cruisers and frigates and only have Tier 1 battleships and so on.
Just because they competed with different ships, doesn't mean it wasn't just as hard..think of how difficult it was to risk and replace ships back then due to lack of things like mining barges, mining foreman bonuses and all that fancy crap.
|
vostok
Minmatar Suns Of Korhal YouWhat
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 15:00:00 -
[1440]
omg no please dont do this, this means carrier pilots will have to entrust several million isk of drones to people they probably dont even know, with the only 5 drones at a time rule too the pilots wont be able to send them back to the carrier if they're taking damage. and if the ship assigned fighters dies, what do the fighters do then?! warp to your ship and NOT dock in your drone bay because they're orbitting you at 2500m thank you tit who decided that on test server not to mention no auto agres, ffs i was doing a level 5 mission and every time i killed a bs all my fighter mwd back to me and run into my smartbombs, they barely respond to commands to move onto a new target, i was sitting there for hours telling the fighters to attack stuff while watching them be even MORE useless than before. btw the thing that made drones great in pvp, was that you could still get them to attack even if your sitting with an arazu on you going :P and no, i wont believe any ship without remote sensor linking will be able to target **** with an arazu jamming them
and only 5 drones at a time makes a carrier almost pointless, these ships are better than battleships at killing stuff, but your just going to make them about useless unless they get a massve bonus to drone damage. consider this... a moros with its 50% per bonus level to drone hp and damage getting potentially a 250% bonus to damage (effectivly 12.5 heavy drones) will be 2.5 times better than a carrier with drones, if this is going to happen carriers need to be able to deploy a lot more drones to give to more people, we need cheaper fighters that dont cost 100 mill to come close to a noob BS and more high slots for remote rep wouldnt be bad either. oh and since carriers are going to be **** anyways, you might as well give them better tarhgetting so they can actuly give support to other ships and not sit there going im damped, yay
dear god this is just upsetting, this is the worst idea i have seen in a long long time
|
|
Osiris Occido
Laughing Leprechauns Corporation
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 15:01:00 -
[1441]
Make sure to unnerf triage while you're at it so that drones can still be used, and we'll call it even.
Perfect Quality with Windows Movie Maker |
xBANDWAGONx
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 15:02:00 -
[1442]
Its a good start CCP, but you need to take it a little further... why not reduce HP's or damage output? I'll be happy to see the importance of BS's boosted again. For those whining that this is a bad change, can you see where 0.0 warfare is headed? Its on path for all cap vs cap fleets... BOB alreaky fights this way. This is not a trend we want to see play out... -- so as not to confuse you, everything below those two little lines is my forum signature. Now i just need to think of something worth putting here... |
Larsonist
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 15:03:00 -
[1443]
Quote: I find the whines of the carrierbear pilots in this thread amusing.
I can fly a carrier, and totally understand why CCP is considering this (or something like it) nerf. Carriers should indeed be more "fleety".
And i have no issues with that. But alot needs to be done before you totally change the "solo" capability of a ship to the point where it is totally useless until alliance/corp field commanders send a mail out saying, "cap ships mobilize!" hampering the quick response of a carrier/mom for those introuble or needing help by forcing fighter delegation is ********. Tackled carriers running logistics will be the next big juicy bullseye. but hey, it will work itself out, in the end all carriers will drop in price and peeps will stop using them except in defense.
|
Tzrailasa
Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 15:03:00 -
[1444]
Originally by: Kagura Nikon People that is just saying no. Try to bring up some ideas also. Because for sure something MUST be done to prevent this game becoming Capitals Online.
This'll not happen ('capitals online' that is). As many others has pointed out, a capital fleet without a support fleet is either a dead or fleeing capital fleet!
The reason we do see huge capital blobs are not because of the ships themselves, but rather that there is absolutely no form of crowd control in the game! This leads to an alliance A vs. B scenario quickly becoming Alliance A+CDEFGH vs. B+IJKLMN...
This then causes the capital and sub-capital blobs that bring the lag-hell we-ve come to know and NOT love! This is THE(!) problem in 0.0 warfare! And CCP are consistently first of all ignoring it exists, and secondly are continously adding new 'features' that makes things worse! More or less ALL deciding battles in the southern parts of EVE over the last 6+ months have been decided by blobbing or lag (most often both)! I don't think more than maybe a handful of battles has been decided by strategy, tactics and skill (which is not equal to SP). If that's not a very clear hint about what's wrong with the game, I don't know what is.
Carriers are perfectly fine as they are. They cost ~10x a battleship, and gives ~2-3x battleship damage. Mommies are 100x battleship cost, and gives ~4-5x battleship damage. 'Fixing' them in this way would be like putting a bit of band-aid on a broken leg. It may look effective, but the problem remains and gets worse.
To 'fix' 0.0 you need to break the blob! Nothing else will do anything to improve matters.
PS: I still think it would help the discussion a lot if CCP would tell us what the problem actually is.....
My views are my own. They do not represent the views of my corporation or alliance. |
Kowaii Hitori
StoneDogS Sylph Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 15:03:00 -
[1445]
don't be ******** ccp please. after having trained for those ships, if i want to bring a fury of death using drones then my opponent is gonna have to deal with it. if the opponent wants to deal, he can cloak or he can equip smartbombs.
|
Mersault
Gallente LFC FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 15:04:00 -
[1446]
Edited by: Mersault on 22/10/2007 15:06:36 Edited by: Mersault on 22/10/2007 15:05:37 if your whole point is to kill the MOM 'I win' button, as you say, then why not just limit a MOM to not having 3 fighters per level?
As one who fought the Serpentis scum Admiral such and such back in Syndiciate many moons ago in the stolen Nyx, i have no issue with the MOM being a powerful ship.
Tha fact is no ship is all powerful and *anything* can be taken down with the right gang and tactics. Recent events show us all this.
What of your latest film CCP?
'Metal behemoths roamed the skies, gorging themselves on lesser beings'
hardly a gorging, a snacking, or even a little nibble if they *cant* do what you have always advertised them as doing and we have trained and worked to get into.
Better still - leave it alone.
A MOM is to be feared. EvE needs scary ships that are hard to deal with. Don't make the game too easy.
|
Solant
Minmatar Ventis Secundis R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 15:07:00 -
[1447]
Its really quite sad to see the community act like this to a dev team that has made consecutively excellent changes to this game for several years now..
one proposed change and people are already flaming ccp and demanding the new guy is fired?
seriously. grow up.
|
Toku Jiang
Jiang Laboratories and Discovery
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 15:09:00 -
[1448]
The changes sound very limiting to a ship that is already limited to drone and fighter damage. Considering a carrier costs a small fortune, the fighters aren't exactly cheap, and the fact that it takes months and months of training to fly one of these, I would fully expect it to be a better killer than a BS and it should. If the drones and fighters are causing mass amounts of lag, and you want to limit them, then you need to make changes to the carrier to compensate for the lost firepower.
|
Attack Dog
Caldari Terran Robotics Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 15:09:00 -
[1449]
ccp y do u constantly endevor to shoot urself in the foot????????????
STOP THE NERFS, nerfs do bugger all to the game, just making it more complex than it needs to be, LISTEN TO THE PLAYERS, THEY PAY UR F'ING SALERY. ------sig starts here------ Don't be a noob, stop whinning 4 nerf's 2day |
Dracon Vidi
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 15:09:00 -
[1450]
Originally by: Bruno Bonner well i'm not a carrier pilot, but i agree with what most MC pilots say, they are a projection of power IN the battlefield not outside of it. And fighters are their weapon.
How about:
-Only 1 drone control unit module allowed to be active/fitted (bringing the maxed quantity of drone/fighters deployed to 6), reducing lag.
-Carrier skill gives out a good boost to fighter HP/Speed/Damage.
The above would make valuable to assign a SINGLE fighter to a pilot as it would still deal a good chunk of damage without having a massive cloud of fighters deployed around.
Regular drones will not get any bonuses from the carrier skill or ship, they would only be affected by the pilot skills in that area.
With the above the carrier pilot can choose to command all 6 deployed fighters himself or in a move to counter being dampened, assign the 6 fighters to 6 different pilots and deal damage.
Assigned fighters should still count as controlled drone units btw.
a naive non-carrier pilot suggestion Bruno
So lets bring BS guns and launchers down to 6 as well, or maybe 5.
|
|
Dracon Vidi
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 15:12:00 -
[1451]
Originally by: Verone
Originally by: gordon cain If you get hotdropped by carrier/mom squad why not counter that.
we do... we walk away.
We can't front motherships, and we front limited capitals.
When you guys killed a mothership in lowsec, you had to front two of your own along with several other capitals to take it down.
For a smaller corporation, there's no way at present to counter it other thank walking away.
And the funny thing is that more and more people are simply dropping blobs of capitals, or a supercap on smaller corporations in lowsec and the fringe areas of 0.0 purely because of the fact they'd rather win an engagement that have a fight they'll remember.
All i can say is NUTS!, look at real life? What happens to the squeaky wheel? It gets Greased. if a small corp gets set upon by a corp that can field Super caps, what did they do to **** them off? It happens in life, let it happn in EVE. Firepower wins the day.
|
Msihcs Neff
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 15:12:00 -
[1452]
CCP please dont do this, as many have said here carriers take so long to train, and are so expensive, that they really should be able to pwn a battleship. Using your current logic battleships should be restricted to using 1 gun/launcher because they pwn cruisers in .2 seconds.
You continually nerf carriers and dreads to the point where people wont even undock them without a blob to support them (causing more of a problem than fixing it)
Please Zulupark if you stay on the dev team try tackling something a little smaller prior to alienating a large portion of the eve community.
If you would like some support for what i am saying take a look at this last armageddon day, what did everyone do?
They hopped into capitals and had a lot of fun with that, if thats not proof that people love capitals what is? I know it causes sometime unbearable lag, but you can fix that with reinforced nodes and server upgrades its not hard to anticipate where the action is going to be. Also think about how many players have devoted their eve lives to capital ships (i have only been playing for a year and have devoted most of it to flying capitals).
Please I'm begging you not to do this and if you've ever flown or killed a carrier you'll know they are actually rather fragile and most battleships with decent skills and a couple remote reps/shield transports can tank a carrier.
|
Sikozu Prioris
Suns Of Korhal YouWhat
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 15:13:00 -
[1453]
You say you've played eve for two years but you are clearly still a utter NOOB, let me explain;
LOGISTIC SHIPS ARE MEANT TO BE THE REMOTE REPAIR/HELP GANG MATES. They are perfectly set up and much much better at helping out gang mates than a carrier.
A carrier's remote repair ability is only useful AFTER THE FIGHT IS OVER, to rep any pos's back up, thats ALL PPL USE IT FOR. They SUCK at repairing gang mates since lock time SUCKS ARSE.
Carriers cost 10 times more than a bs and over 15 times more than a bs when fitted, so why should it HAVE THE SAME/WORSE DPS. It doesnt make sense. Also carriers cannot kill a bs in 0.2s unless it has cargo expanders and no tank. Dude actually see how long a carrier takes to kill a single fully tanked bs, its not that fast and for the massive investment in isk the dps it can deal at the moment IS FAIR.
Yea I dont think ppl will be buying you drinks at all at fanfest, or looking/talking at you for that matter.
"A enemy fleet emerges from the shadows"
- What shadows!?! We're in ****ing space for gods sake
|
Captain Schmungles
Caldari Freelancing Corp Confederation of Independent Corporations
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 15:14:00 -
[1454]
So, I'm reading these 55 (56?) pages of replies, mostly against this nerf, and yet I find a few people who are in favor of it and just can't understand why at least 1000 other people hate it. Here are their reasons:
1. Dropping a blob of caps/supercaps on a small pvp fight is "unfair" and blah blah blah...
My response: You're darn right it's unfair. Sorry you got hit with a large fleet, but the alliance using that tactic is, frankly, way smarter than you are. Either come in a massive show of force yourself, or accept that a five-man gang is not invincible. In short: don't be so naive.
2. Carriers cause lag with all those fighters...
Yes, they do, but is the answer really to nerf them into obsolescence? No. The answer is for CCP for fix their rampant database issues and to upgrade their server clusters to address a server-side problem that has been known about for some time now. CCP obviously likes the existence of well-organized alliances, knows that large fleet combat is an inevitable by-product of large alliances, and yet is apparently unwilling to have the right hardware in place to support this kind of gameplay.
3. People kill me with their carrier in low sec and it's just not fair...
Stop whining. Carriers are going to be allowed in low sec whether you like it or not. Triage mode, level V missions-- the whole point of that was to "populate" low sec space with better organized corporations that, on occasion, will field a carrier to support the other four guys running a mission (or mining, etc.) If that carrier pilot happens to get bored running remote reppers and, for example, camps a gate and kills you and your friends, well, you take a risk in low sec each time you go through a gate. Sorry you died, but that's the way it goes. You can buy another Raven.
4. My battleship can't perma-tank a carrier (or tank it at all). That must be because the carrier is "overpowered" and needs nerfed.
LOL. This has to be the best one. You think your 100 million ISK bs should be able to effectively tank a multi-billion ISK carrier?! I know the comparisons to reality can get kind of lame, but honestly, no navy on Earth expects that one of it's battleships (or, in the case of the US Navy, Ticonderoga class cruiser) can go up against an aircraft carrier on its own. You would expect the carrier to win. Every time. The same is true in EVE-- a multi-billion ISK capital ship SHOULD ALWAYS DESTROY your (comparatively) dinky battleship.
Stop whining about how you died. It's a game. You can buy another ship.
|
Matthew
Caldari BloodStar Technologies
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 15:17:00 -
[1455]
Originally by: Msihcs Neff If you would like some support for what i am saying take a look at this last armageddon day, what did everyone do?
They hopped into capitals and had a lot of fun with that, if thats not proof that people love capitals what is?
Well, it's not. All it's really proof of is that people took advantage of having super'ed characters to try out the ships they're least likely to be able to try out easily any other way. ------- There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines. |
Dracon Vidi
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 15:18:00 -
[1456]
Originally by: Kagura Nikon People that is just saying no. Try to bring up some ideas also. Because fore sure something MUST be done to prevent this game becoming Capitals Online.
Maybe buff the battleships? Give BS a bit more of HP so they can survive long enough to do anything?
Maybe create a new module that for example gives 20% extra damage and 20% rof but with 20% tracking penalty (so would be useful against capitals only)
THis is a silly. tarin your skills up and the BS can live just fine. If your skills aren't up....well that is YOUR problem,not the carriers.
Limit fighters deployment in 1 per second ( example) to avoid the mom warp in target, you dead ....
|
ER0X
Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 15:19:00 -
[1457]
Originally by: xBANDWAGONx Its a good start CCP, but you need to take it a little further... why not reduce HP's or damage output? I'll be happy to see the importance of BS's boosted again. For those whining that this is a bad change, can you see where 0.0 warfare is headed? Its on path for all cap vs cap fleets... BOB alreaky fights this way. This is not a trend we want to see play out...
<< Simply this >>
Study the pictures listen to the language it's exactly as was expected.
|
Greenbolt
Minmatar Universal Exports
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 15:20:00 -
[1458]
This would put cap ships back as pos huggers 99 percent of the time...with a few gangs using htem as logistic ships..and MOMs would never be front line. no point risking that kinda isk when a carrier is about as good for logistics work.
serious nerfage there...or atleast serious change of direction in there use. i can see people with 15-20B isk invested in Motherships beingreally annoyed.
--------------------------------------------------- Scordite -Who was it that said that flying minmatar is kinda like going down a flight of stairs on an office chair while firing an uzi? |
Shina Parea
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 15:22:00 -
[1459]
Maybe it has already been mentioned but...
i will just say these words:
"change of gameplay" "making a game better *cough*" "Star Wars Galaxies *cough cough*"
Many ppl chose to train for carriers cause they like having 10-15 (20-25) drones around them...
|
Katashi Ishizuka
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 15:22:00 -
[1460]
I think if you want to make carriers more fleety:
Make fighter drone guns have a higher sig radius - therefore needing someone who can target paint.
Make fighter drones move slower - therefore needing someone to web.
Introduce subsystem targeting for capitals allowing small ships like destroyers, frigates, and stealth bombers to selectively cripple large ships. These subsystems will have a small sig radius such that it would be difficult for battleships to hit these systems.
Make sig radius a bigger factor in damage calculations.
|
|
Ztrain
Evolution Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 15:23:00 -
[1461]
Originally by: Solant Its really quite sad to see the community act like this to a dev team that has made consecutively excellent changes to this game for several years now..
one proposed change and people are already flaming ccp and demanding the new guy is fired?
seriously. grow up.
Seriously this game was a hell of a lot better BEFORE Revilations. Most of the changes that they've made have directly lead to the detriment of the game from a design stand point. I'm guessing most people wont quit the game if they make this change. Most of them will just take whatever poor garbage CCP spoon feeds them till the other MMOs are ready. When that happens
Z CCP (Producers of Slide Show Online) takin the fun out of EVE, one patch at a time. |
Neoromi
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 15:24:00 -
[1462]
Im hit with the exact same feeling that i got when the NGE was announced for SWG as i am getting now, utter lack of wanting to ever log back in.
|
Ztrain
Evolution Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 15:26:00 -
[1463]
Originally by: Neoromi Im hit with the exact same feeling that i got when the NGE was announced for SWG as i am getting now, utter lack of wanting to ever log back in.
Bingo, exactly the same here. People ask why are you so ****ed. Because I've seen it else where when the Dev's have absolutely no comprehension of what they are doing as I've seen from this crew at the moment. I literally have no faith in their abilities to do their job from a technical to a design standpoint. Seen it before gonna see it again.
Z CCP (Producers of Slide Show Online) takin the fun out of EVE, one patch at a time. |
Attack Dog
Caldari Terran Robotics Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 15:28:00 -
[1464]
lets take a look into the past -scary nano battleships (which fighters can't hit) -ccp's desicion NERFED
-nos epidemic -ccp's desicion NERFED
-ppl using carriers in a way we don't like (already had a whack from the nerf bat) -ccp's desicion NERFED AGAIN
------sig starts here------ Don't be a noob, stop whinning 4 nerf's 2day |
Theladder
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 15:28:00 -
[1465]
Think of it for 1 sec ccp plz, why the hell on earth would u buy a ship that cost u 20b a hull and 10b in equipments which cannot even defend itself in a 1v2 situation?? With 5 fighters u probably cant even kill a SINGLE BS!!! How is it possible to grab a buddy with u all the time when you login to this game? Just to assign 5 fighters to him?? What are u going to do when your buddy IS NOT online?? park the MOM in a cap ship maint array and go with a BS????
|
The Kan
Gallente The Circle STYX.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 15:28:00 -
[1466]
woa guys, calm down! I just found CCP reasoning for all of this..
http://www.eve-online.com/background/potw/23-10-06.asp
|
ArmyOfMe
hirr Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 15:28:00 -
[1467]
im impressed really of this thread, usally there is bob vs goons, north vs umm, well(we nap everyone really) but in this thread we all come toghter like a nice big blob against ccp
|
ElCoCo
KIA Corp KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 15:28:00 -
[1468]
Did I say I didn't like your proposal, at all?
|
Msihcs Neff
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 15:29:00 -
[1469]
Originally by: Matthew
Originally by: Msihcs Neff If you would like some support for what i am saying take a look at this last armageddon day, what did everyone do?
They hopped into capitals and had a lot of fun with that, if thats not proof that people love capitals what is?
Well, it's not. All it's really proof of is that people took advantage of having super'ed characters to try out the ships they're least likely to be able to try out easily any other way.
Maybe True Matthew but you cant deny the appeal of capital ships, the few times i've had my capitals in combat are some of my favorite eve memories and this nerf threatens those moments.
|
Neoromi
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 15:31:00 -
[1470]
Edited by: Neoromi on 22/10/2007 15:33:32
Originally by: Ztrain
Originally by: Neoromi Im hit with the exact same feeling that i got when the NGE was announced for SWG as i am getting now, utter lack of wanting to ever log back in.
Bingo, exactly the same here. People ask why are you so ****ed. Because I've seen it else where when the Dev's have absolutely no comprehension of what they are doing as I've seen from this crew at the moment. I literally have no faith in their abilities to do their job from a technical to a design standpoint. Seen it before gonna see it again.
Z
Theyre doing a grade A Sony mistake, starting out unique and fresh but down the line they want more and succumb to being bland.
|
|
Brixer
Dai Dai Hai
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 15:32:00 -
[1471]
I'm reading quite a few people thinks fighters autoagro anything shooting at the carrier, and say this is an unfair advantage in laggy situations. I can tell you ignorants that fighters don't autoagro, and by the time you can command them to attack a new target in laggy situations they have returned into your smartbombs and died.
Train some skills or beg for them on Sisi, try a carrier and see what it can and can't do before wasting everyones time by spreading false claims.
|
Pallidum Treponema
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 15:32:00 -
[1472]
There is a reason for why most fleet battleships are turret models, and it's not only because three out of four races have turret battleships.
This reason is because turret battleships deal direct fire, as in their damage gets applied straight away as opposed to missiles and drones that take time to reach their targets.
The only capital ship with capital sized direct fire capability is the dreadnought. This ship has horribly low DPS with its main batteries outside of siege mode. When it enters siege mode, the DPS is far higher, but it suffers a hit to its tracking abilities to make it next to useless against anything battleship sized or smaller. This make dreadnoughts not a viable alternative to battleships in fleets.
Titans deal direct fire as well, in the form of the doomsday device. This weapon, however, can only be fired once an hour. That, coupled with its huge cost makes titans not a viable alternative to battleships in fleets.
Carriers and motherships don't deal direct damage. Their fighters are slow (2.5km/s MWD speed), which means that they will take almost a minute to reach sniper distances. Taking the cost of said fighters into consideration, and factoring how easy it is to destroy one, carriers are not cost effective in terms of replacing battleships. They also lack the agility of the battleship, and the means to quickly travel to a new location without having to rely on support ships already being in place. This makes carriers not a viable alternatives to battleships in fleets.
Rorquals aren't viable alternatives to battleships in fleets either.
So, what are you worried about? Battleships will STILL play a huge role in warfare in the future. -- MC's Swedish squidshark
|
Sara Leone
Gallente Freelancer Union Unaffiliated
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 15:33:00 -
[1473]
Originally by: CCP Eris Discordia
Originally by: Sin mez
Do you even play the game? And talking about bias like that when it's pretty obvious you're full of it is disgraceful. What are you thinking? Do you even understand your own playerbase, or for that matter your own game? If one would look at the dev comments without bias they would realize the devs have lost touch in a big way.
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.
It might seem harsh Eris, but cherry picking a single post that you feel resonates with the reasons why the Dev team are looking to retask the carriers from maybe 50 pages of almost entirely negative comments does come across to the casual reader as biased, even blatently so. Not that I think the disrespectful tone of the above poster was needed.
My char is barely four months old and I cannot fly any carriers, however, to add my 2isk to the debate I am going to say this: It is time to stop radically changing long existing game tools in this fashion.
People have paid good money and put a lot of time in to train up to use these ships and the proposed changes are going to radically alter what they have been paying and training to do. Breaking their toys in this manner is not good leadership by the dev team it is outright dictatorship.
It might as you seem to claim, turn out to be for the best, and that under your guidance things will only get better, but nobody except the devs seems to really think so. Triage modules have been made available on the market, and yet remain almost entirely unused, why? because it seems that most people prefer not to use them due to the massive constraints they require. This should really be a clue to the dev team, huge logistic/remote rep ships are useful but not highly desired.
If you really think that such ships are needed and would be great why not create a new class of light carriers that have these specific abilities and seed the BPOs and see if they take off?
Maybe they will be great and do everything you guys want and the old carriers will rot in their hangers as everyone moves forward to the bright new world, but you know what I doubt it. And if you do press forward with these changes, at the very least you should Grandfather the current carriers and motherships so that long term players don't have their role and raison d'eve removed by an unwanted overnight nerf.
|
Sertan Deras
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 15:33:00 -
[1474]
Edited by: Sertan Deras on 22/10/2007 15:35:10 I really wonder sometimes if the devs play the same game as the rest of us, or even correctly hear our complaints. It's like the telephone game gone bad:
Players: Carriers and Motherships are causing too much lag, and their DPS is lag immune. Fix the lag. Some Guy At CCP: Carriers are doing too much DPS in the lag? Designers at CCP: Oh, well, the players must want Carrier DPS nerfed!
No, no, NO. That's not what we said, at any time. We said the carriers cause too much lag. You know what this change will do? NOTHING. They will still belch out 10-20 little lag monsters, someone else will just control them now. Wow, what a fix.
Seriously, CCP. Do you play this game outside of your sterile testing environments? Do you even hear what we say? Or do you even care? I hate to agree with a BoBite...but yah, CCP...destroying the fun of EVE one patch at a time.
"Hey guys, I have an idea. You see, despite the fact that carriers cost billions and take nearly a year of skill training, lets put their DPS in line with battleships that cost 1/10th the price and take two months to train for. YES!".
|
Cadela Fria
Amarr Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 15:35:00 -
[1475]
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.
Many of us HAVE provided constructive critisism, myself included.. For the sake of ease, here they all are:
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=618279&page=11#312 http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=618279&page=11#321 http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=618279&page=15#434 and the best one: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=618279&page=35#1029
Not to mention all the posts by my fellow alliance mates, and various other posts I've made with other people in here, arguing why and how this is a bad idea. However! If you're telling me that you're just going to pass that off and say that's my bias talking, and that my post doesn't provide you with anything wortwhile..
Then, I guess I was sorely mistaken about CCP never taking on the guise of a hypocrite.. I mean no offense whatsoever, but it seems to me that I, and many others, have an opinion and have documented our reasons really well. Ontop of that, you have an opinion aswell, along with Verone it seems, which you have documented aswell. However, it takes no educated genius to see that because your opinion ligns up really well with mr. Verone, that you hold a very definitive and CLEAR bias towards him.
You write off hundreds, if not thousends of voices and where some are blatant yelling and unmannered, many are in fact, really well argued and touching very specifically on the reasons why NOT to do this, why it will NOT help gameplay on a larger scale. You do this, in favor of 1 person whom you saw fit to give a virtual cookie as a sign of reward for saying exactly, what you want players to say.
Your Madam, ARE being biased in the context of opinion which you define as "bias". Again I mean absolutely no offense to ye m'lady, but that performance was, from my point of view, absolutely ghastly, and you will have to excuse me if I don't sound as forthcoming in trying to support you or this idea.
The idea was a poor one from the beginning in my opinion and I clearly stated why. Where's the alternative you ask? There isn't any! I will not accept a compromise and I believe I have good reasons not to. Now with this sort of message between you and mr. Verone, I definitely have a problem with this whole ordeal, and I think you know why.
Goodday *tips hat*.
|
Saint Luka
The Illuminati. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 15:36:00 -
[1476]
Whilst i did not play SWG i did have alot of friends who went through the whole "ordeal".
Developers bringing in changes against the wants/needs of the community.
What happened? Companies profits fell through the floor.
What happens then? Job cuts, node cuts, worse ideas untill the game itself falls through the floor. -
|
seven offnine
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 15:36:00 -
[1477]
i agree with all person here that said it's a bad nerf.
caps and super caps must keep there firepower. it's bad to reduce by 2 ou more the fire power.
the principal interest of those ship is : 1/ they tank a lot 2/ thay have 30% more firepower than a good full DPS battle-ship
so, dont reduce firepower of those cap and super cap ship. if you do so, thay cant defende themself, and have no interest for players.
plz, dont nerf them.
maybe reduce to 5 drone, but give them 100% more damage.
|
Sebastien LeReparteur
Minmatar SpaceTravelers Freelance Corp
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 15:37:00 -
[1478]
Edited by: Sebastien LeReparteur on 22/10/2007 15:41:55 Hi all,
My opinion is that is not the way to fix capitals. Capitals are CAPITALS and should in a way rule the battle field.
Capital blob create lag and that is what is overpowering them, assigning fighters only means that resources and ppl full corp/alliance won't even see a difference but smaller ones will get the short end of the shaft... again.
At some point if any ship class should be able to compete with any other ship there should be no price and skill difference between them.
The real issue is LAG and low sec Super Capitals. Limiting drones and fighters is like putting a band aid on a battle-axe wound.
Either: create a capital scrambler class ship for low sec and 0.0. Remove super caps from low sec. Instead of having a number of deployed boost them as was done to other drone ships as a per lvl multiplier. Fighters and drones are easy kills for trained interceptor and AF pilots.
If I understand well you say that Carriers are glorified Logistics
|
Neoromi
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 15:41:00 -
[1479]
Edited by: Neoromi on 22/10/2007 15:41:11 Have we even heard what CCPs reasons for this change is? Other than "CARRIER MELT BS IN 0.2 SECONDS LAWL" which we all agree on is total bull****, i sure havent.
|
Hermaphrodiety
Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 15:43:00 -
[1480]
Originally by: Cadela Fria ...
You're my hero! Because i just still don't find any words for all this joke...
---------------------------------------------
|
|
Brixer
Dai Dai Hai
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 15:44:00 -
[1481]
Originally by: Katashi I****uka I think if you want to make carriers more fleety:
Make fighter drone guns have a higher sig radius - therefore needing someone who can target paint.
Check, fighters are useless on Cruisers bacause of tracking/medium gun resolution.
Originally by: Katashi I****uka
Make fighter drones move slower - therefore needing someone to web.
Check, fastest fighter (einherji) can reach speeds of approx 300 m/s while orbiting and shooting
Originally by: Katashi I****uka
Introduce subsystem targeting for capitals allowing small ships like destroyers, frigates, and stealth bombers to selectively cripple large ships. These subsystems will have a small sig radius such that it would be difficult for battleships to hit these systems.
Check, warp scram(frigs), dampener(frigs/recons), dictors(destroyers), killing fighters (anyone with a webber)
Originally by: Katashi I****uka
Make sig radius a bigger factor in damage calculations.
It's possibe I guess..
|
Tarnia Xavian
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 15:44:00 -
[1482]
Oh well. At least we'll still have our smartbombs and stabs for camping low sec. Our moms won't be a total loss.
|
Tash Murkon
Amarr
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 15:44:00 -
[1483]
Originally by: Zulupark IÆve been with CCP for just under two years now and donÆt plan on going anywhere.
You should start planning tbh. |
Lysteria
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 15:45:00 -
[1484]
Originally by: Neoromi Edited by: Neoromi on 22/10/2007 15:41:11 Have we even heard what CCPs reasons for this change is? Other than "CARRIER MELT BS IN 0.2 SECONDS LAWL" which we all agree on is total bull****, i sure havent.
I can tank a singel carrier with 13 fighters and fighter lvl 4 untill i run out of boosters in my abbadon - So they aint really that evil O_o
So i think its total BS like you are saying
|
Kronn Blackthorne
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 15:49:00 -
[1485]
Edited by: Kronn Blackthorne on 22/10/2007 15:50:50 the other day , a smartbombing megathron melted my shuttle in 0.2 sec , ....... NERF !!!
sorry but i don t see why i should be constructive with such bull5hit idea
capitals and super capitals .. i wonder why they will be named super if the change happen .. lol , except super expensive compared to other ships ..
anyway ,someone in corp said adapt or die , fine but we have to adapt every ****in single patch with all the **** they are providing to us ....why can t they adapt for once ? they stop their stupid idea, listen to community ....
we are the one paying them , why should we adapt ?
The Frenchy |
Hermaphrodiety
Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 15:50:00 -
[1486]
Edited by: Hermaphrodiety on 22/10/2007 15:50:32
Originally by: CCP Eris Discordia Verone gets a cookie
Also it would help if people could try to look passed their own bias when they reply with constructive criticism.
Takk
PS for the right bribe I can slap, kick or throw stuff at him because he sits right beside me
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.
Telling us as a community to be biased but just listening to one single person, that does see EVE just onesidedly and thinks the same way. Then telling us, that we don't bring constructive ideas while we already wrote down hundreds of different ones, that point in different directions, is stupid.
Thanks for that, CCP. Open your eyes and start reacting in a way that is worth the EVE-community.
---------------------------------------------
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 15:51:00 -
[1487]
Originally by: Neoromi Edited by: Neoromi on 22/10/2007 15:41:11 Have we even heard what CCPs reasons for this change is? Other than "CARRIER MELT BS IN 0.2 SECONDS LAWL" which we all agree on is total bull****, i sure havent.
This is all the 'reason' CCP seem to have:
Quote: ...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.
No explanations what's wrong! No justifications! Nothing!
I dunno, maybe the Zulu-guy got hired from SWG after they implemented his game balance changes there.....
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Rusty PwnStar
Rampage Eternal Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 15:51:00 -
[1488]
Originally by: Cadela Fria
Originally by: CCP Eris Discordia Verone gets a cookie.... & stuff
Many of us HAVE provided constructive critisism, myself included.. For the sake of ease, here they all are:
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=618279&page=11#312 http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=618279&page=11#321 http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=618279&page=15#434 and the best one: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=618279&page=35#1029
Not to mention all the posts by my fellow alliance mates, and various other posts I've made with other people in here, arguing why and how this is a bad idea. However! If you're telling me that you're just going to pass that off and say that's my bias talking, and that my post doesn't provide you with anything wortwhile..
Then, I guess I was sorely mistaken about CCP never taking on the guise of a hypocrite.. I mean no offense whatsoever, but it seems to me that I, and many others, have an opinion and have documented our reasons really well. Ontop of that, you have an opinion aswell, along with Verone it seems, which you have documented aswell. However, it takes no educated genius to see that because your opinion ligns up really well with mr. Verone, that you hold a very definitive and CLEAR bias towards him.
You write off hundreds, if not thousends of voices and where some are blatant yelling and unmannered, many are in fact, really well argued and touching very specifically on the reasons why NOT to do this, why it will NOT help gameplay on a larger scale. You do this, in favor of 1 person whom you saw fit to give a virtual cookie as a sign of reward for saying exactly, what you want players to say.
You Madam, ARE being biased in the context of opinion which you define as "bias". Again I mean absolutely no offense to ye m'lady, but that performance was, from my point of view, absolutely ghastly, and you will have to excuse me if I don't sound as forthcoming in trying to support you or this idea.
The idea was a poor one from the beginning in my opinion and I clearly stated why. Where's the alternative you ask? There isn't any! I will not accept a compromise and I believe I have good reasons not to. Now with this sort of message between you and mr. Verone, I definitely have a problem with this whole ordeal, and I think you know why.
Goodday *tips hat*.
Here here, very well said. Posts made by the DEVs in this thread, drive me to believe that this is already going into TQ.
Regards Rusty
|
Aerick Dawn
Gallente The Arrow Project Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 15:53:00 -
[1489]
Originally by: Kamenwati I find the whines of the carrierbear pilots in this thread amusing.
I can fly a carrier, and totally understand why CCP is considering this (or something like it) nerf. Carriers should indeed be more "fleety".
A carrier with no support can get killed unbelievably easy. (I've lost 3) A group of carriers can die very easily too without a fleet.
They have to be in a fleet to be effective.
It just saddens me that CCCP has to cater to people that do not have the brains to counter which is easily counterable. 3 Arazu's pretty much wipe out 5 carriers.
__________________ If I'm in a fair fight, i've done something terribly wrong. |
Vaedian GER
Omega Fleet Enterprises Executive Outcomes
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 15:53:00 -
[1490]
Let's hope they got the message and aren't making EVE the second 'New Game Experience' after SWG.
|
|
Tash Murkon
Amarr
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 15:56:00 -
[1491]
Originally by: Vaedian GER Let's hope they got the message and aren't making EVE the second 'New Game Experience' after SWG.
They won't, they aren't that stupid. not ?
And then he stepped Down From the Heavens To judge the unworthy, To redeem the pure.
|
Voltron
Caldari The Collective Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 15:56:00 -
[1492]
Originally by: Tarnia Xavian Oh well. At least we'll still have our smartbombs and stabs for camping low sec. Our moms won't be a total loss.
Next on the nerf list tbh.
Volt
P.S.
I still haven't had the carrier skill ripped from my skull and my isk refunded, whats up? I didn't pay to fly the uber logistics beast, if the change goes through I would like my iskies back so I can buy 4 battleships instead. It's great touching your own dink isn't it?
Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed dimensions of 400x120 pixels -Valorem ([email protected])
|
Queldonus
Minmatar Contraband Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 15:57:00 -
[1493]
I wonder why I would spend so much time training to max out skills to fly a mothership? I wonder why I would spend so much TIME and EFFORT in obtaining the isk to build a mothership? I wonder WHY CCP has to bring new people in with NERF bats to make the game a whole lot less fun? I wonder why you always have to change the game so that the little whinners in the forums get what they want?
Few things from a previous Beta Tester of this game.
I for one think that the way things are going with the nerf bat that this will be the end of the game. I personally will take all my accounts and leave this game due to the lack fun! Lot of people are posting in these forums and a lot of people DON't! (including myself).
Now lets look at the problem behind your logic! 1. there is no logic? 2. you want to create blobs of support to field a mothership or carrier. 3. this helps the large alliance blobs 4. this helps INCREASE LAG with fighters being assigned and gang server trying to keep up with it all. 5. now I can get ganked by a smaller fleet or Battleships and ONE dictor. 6. ITS A SUPERCAPITAL! 7. Carriers would become the new throw away battleship. 8. It seems these need for speed thing just flew right off the track and crashed with the new guy behind the wheel! 9. If really want people to complain and whin, well you did it now! 10. As a long time player of this game, I have to draw a line at where CCP has gone to far to take the fun out of this game and LEAVE IT!!!
|
Li via
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 16:01:00 -
[1494]
"Not only do we want to limit the amount of fighters you can launch, but also the amount of drones! Yes, we want to limit carriers and motherships just like other ships, i.e. they should only be able to field 5 regular drones at any given time. "
Other ships also have guns and launchers relative to size... Super Citadel launchers on the way.... no... then leave it alone.
li
http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m87/dv8_eve/Anti-Carrier-Nerf-Sig.jpg |
Yourbane
Minmatar A.W.M Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 16:02:00 -
[1495]
I'm a bit out of eve lately.. but i saw the news on a nearby forum and i just had to protest ^^
SERIOUSLY HERE !!! wake up man, consider the facts :
Cruiser : 1 mil sp . does little dmg Battleship: 4 mil sp . does much more Carrier: 18 mil sp (and i'm not done yet) . does more than the bs, but with fragile gankable drones, which are also stupid and can't answer orders in a timely manner, all that on a ship that needs 5 sensor boosters to prevent his ennemy from warping . ok its not a solopwnmobile, i do think its balanced.
Now think about it , i spent a year skilling a Carrier because i thought the Nidhoggur looked nice, and i eventually got my ship, which costed about 15 battleships . And you want to take the little firepower the carriers have from all the people who skilled those ships, to make them only fleet useful ... i know you want to balance but i'm sorry. it's too late, much too late to completely change a ship that takes a one year skilling process to get. As a strategist, i totally agree that if you could field a carrier instead of almost any other ship, it would be better (until it reaches more than half the fleet imo). But still, when that carrier dies, you don't just lose 30 mils for insurance and fits. you lose 1.5+ billions. Even losing a pair of fighter costs the same price as losing a fleet battleship, and i think the price of all that balances it.. Yes money is power, once again but that's nothing new ^^
And again, yes capitals and supercapitals are changing the balance in EvE, but it's too late, such drastic changes will just make a lot of people leave, and sell their carriers.( who would want of a 1.5+ bil ship that's only usable in fleets/ gangs, and is still pretty crappy at it . )
|
Inturist
Nuclear Reactor Inc INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 16:03:00 -
[1496]
Originally by: Vaedian GER Let's hope they got the message and aren't making EVE the second 'New Game Experience' after SWG.
Yea , let's hope --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Prydeless
Vengeance of the Fallen
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 16:04:00 -
[1497]
Zulu probably got pwned by miz or someone camping lowsec in a mothership and said omqzerz I SHOULDNT BE ABLE TO DIE TO A 30 Billion isk ship! NERF! And what is with this 'look past your bias of your iwinmobile'. What kind of nonsense is that!?!?
Disclaimer: I am a God. |
Emsigma
Contraband Inc. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 16:08:00 -
[1498]
Edited by: Emsigma on 22/10/2007 16:12:29 I just cancelled my 4 accounts and unless I see some kind of promise that this is not going in, they will remain in that state.
As Pallidum said; I am protesting with my wallet. That is Ç60 less for you / month! ---
|
Lobster Man
Murder-Death-Kill
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 16:10:00 -
[1499]
CCP Please please please please take a hint at what everyone is saying in this thread. Do not make the same mistake that sony made with starwars galaxies!
and
Everyone adpot the save capitals sig please!!!
|
Nagatok
AWE Corporation Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 16:12:00 -
[1500]
Edited by: Nagatok on 22/10/2007 16:15:48 goddammit CCP make a GOOD decision once in your goddamn careers
|
|
LordVodka
Earned In Blood Black Sun Cartel
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 16:13:00 -
[1501]
lol @ sig! Just want to re-iterate this one more time, we're up to 58 pages of general disgust about the carrier nerf. Obviously the eve community doesn't feel it needs a nerf so why does ccp...
for the love of eve! DON'T DO IT!
|
Northius
Spartan Industries Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 16:14:00 -
[1502]
This is more stupid than not practicing safe sex in a third world country.
Priory High Council
Support the NSPDP National Society For the Protection of Discriminated Pirates
|
Hugh Ruka
Caldari Free Traders Free Trade Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 16:15:00 -
[1503]
Edited by: Hugh Ruka on 22/10/2007 16:15:57 disclaimer: I cannot fly capital ships, they are too expensive for my style of play and generaly not my cup of cofee. my views expressed in this post may be far off, but I take that as my own problem :-)
so here it goes:
It seems to me, that CCP is running into a brick wall. They are envisioning grand 0.0 battles for territory and resuorces, they are providing the tools to do this, but they are NOT providing efficient and effective ways to employ said tools to do what they have envisioned.
We have POSes, carriers, dreads, motherships, titans, outpost, sov levels and what not. All this happening in the past 2 years.
Yet we still have the same crap gang interface and mechanics (with one little tweak so far), same useless tactical overlay, same useless non-customisable UI.
We have the tools, but we do not have the means to use them. We lack gang/fleet mechanics and interfaces. We lack tactical overviews. We lack essential system information etc.
I mean today, the best way to organise a fleet is to:
x - support or x - sniper or x - carrier
in alliance channel and wait for invitation. I mean WTF !!!
All this leads to people using the tools given by CCP in the most brute force effective way. This boils down to more DPS than the enemy (usualy). Those trying to use tactics and information superiority are few and effective to an extend, but they pay the price of less flexibility (a trained squad cannot be changed for another one, because they don't know what to do and explaining takes too long).
And CCP wonders why DPS is almost always the holy grail? There are wastly underdeveloped features in this game. Sensoric warfare is crude at best. Fleet organisation the same.
With such kinds of holes, how does CCP expect the game to develop as they envision it ? The result are half-assed nerfs and half-designed features.
Originally by: Aravel Thon
Originally by: Nith Batoxxx Hi my alt just leanred to fly the ferox...............
I am so so terribly sorry...
|
Alcrista Somez
Amarr The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 16:16:00 -
[1504]
I dont think this isnt about Carriers at all.
Its about slightly lowering the "level cap" in response to younger players who dont like the fact that they cant catch up to players with more sp than them in terms of damage output and battlefield prowess.
Capping the damage output in fleet fights at a Tech2 BS is a way of giving new players a long term (18 months ish as a vague guess) goal interms of good attainable damage output, and also making sure that at that point they can still compete on the battlefield with players carting 50 or 60 mil sp.
I think CCP are worried that carriers and moms in their current role give a single pilot too much damage and so they are trying to tweak things so that the extra SP of an old character WONT mean lots of extra DPS.
So really its about addressing potential issues with eves skilling system as the old players get older and more skilled and the new players are ever further behind when they join the game.
Im not making any comment what so ever on the validity of this. Just saying that I think this is what the real issue is that CCP are trying to resolve.
|
Xilimyth Derlin
OldBastardsPub SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 16:24:00 -
[1505]
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.
This is the kind of thinking I was looking at regarding this. As a capital pilot in training myself, I was looking forward to carriers (w/ Triage Module fitted). I watched and experienced on both ends how carriers were being used.
When capitals were first released, they screamed cooperative fleet ships. Requiring a cyno field to be placed to even move... the heart of this being that you needed to work together to get it in battle. But people just trained Cyno alts. $15 extra a month to .... you guessed it.... drop a cyno on whatever enemy they wanted, and overwhelm single targets on their own.
Yes, I understand that people have trained long for these and got used to this style of play, but even from the design of what CCP was trying to make capitals in the beginning, it doesn't match up.
5 fighter craft will still put out excellent damage, you just won't be melting the battleship instantly. And so what, assign fighters to the cyno alt or the gangmate you came to support (carrier wise) and you'll still do the same damage. Mothership pilots.... It's a mothership. Your multi-billion investment was built for a different purpose then nuking 2 man gangs. However, they have a new problem caused by this. Either way, delegation of fighters fixes this 'glitch' in capital-teamplay by design, and sadly obsessed players will still end up buying extra accounts for 'fighter alts' if they REALLY want to keep that ability.
Problems and Questions I have though:
- The fighter interface (and by design drone interface) is very clunky. I know the interface is being fixed, but it does need to become quicker to work with especially for quick delegation like a "Launch Fighters and Delegate to..." command.
- If carriers are forced into delegation of fighters, allow the delegated fighters to work if the carrier uses a triage module. Truly make it a support craft where heck, people will WANT to delegate all their fighters to maximize the carrier/mom's potential.
- Motherships should have a better role other then just super carrier (even though that's what it is..) The EMP Pulse is great, but nothing that a brave (or suicidal) bomber pilot can't do with a lockbreaker bomb.
|
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar MASS HOMICIDE Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 16:28:00 -
[1506]
Originally by: Zareph Edited by: Zareph on 22/10/2007 14:28:14 Disclaimer: I can't fly a carrier, I've never flown a carrier, and I've never seen one in action. However, when I first heard 'there are carriers!' and one of the many reasons I joined the game vs. how they're actually implemented kinda changed my initial excitement.
To me, a carrier is a vessel that is huge, and holds other fighter craft that do most of its dirty work. Most of the items mounted to a carrier are point defense to keep the riff raff away, I'm thinking 'Battlestar Galactica' type of defense with AA and what not, few missle batteries etc.
What I don't really like the idea of is how carriers work. The fighters are basically fancy drones.
They're not real people. To me a carrier should have x amount of fighter bay space, and you have real live players dock up and prepare to launch out of the carrier. The carrier jumps in, the frigates/cruisers/small support craft (aka Raptors in BSG) fire out and kick butt, and hope the carrier survives the encounter so that they can dock and jump free. If the carrier goes, the real live players are royally screwed and have to jump gate back to wherever they came from.
Too me, that would make carriers exciting. otherwise as I understand it they're no more than a giant big drone thing and I view the nerf bat as a necessary evil. But if it could carry 10 - 30 (skill dependent) frigates and another 3 -5 support ships (skill dependent) *that* would be exciting from my point of view. However, again, I've not seen one in action. From the way the blog post reads one carrier could take out a fleet. that seems a bit extreme.
THAt, THAT is what ccp should have aimed for. We would be having none of this problem if this was implemented
If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough |
maria stallion
Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 16:30:00 -
[1507]
CCP's reaction so far have dissapointed me.
However this change is just one of the many changes that allready have been made, that made eve much more borring(station services, sov wars, removing death star pos's, etc). While they want to do the opposite they keep heading in a direction that won't solve the problem.
This solution to a none excisting problem has just gone to far as can be seen by the great amount of post made in this topic so far.
I would like to see that CCP and groups of players sit around the virtual tabel to discuss things that need to be changed to increase the fun factor in EVE. No devblog where you need EVE-voice which 90% of eve doesn't use, just a normal chat so CCP can get a better view on how the mass of eve look at things.
I think this DEV blog and topic showed us how different CCP and the players look at in game mechanics.
|
Lazuran
Gallente Time And ISK Sink Corporation
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 16:31:00 -
[1508]
It's amazing how much incompetence CCP have displayed in this thread regarding their own game. I wonder if they have been playing WoW for the past 2-3 years.
Can we please at least get confirmation that the Moros will not be nerfed, so that we can train for that instead (forgetting about the 6+ months we trained Carrier skills)?
I wonder what the next step is. Nerfing everything bigger than a battleship? Then lowsec pirates will probably use officer-fitted battleships to camp gates with 2-3 carrier alts repping / gang boosting them. I'm sure that's gonna be the kind of gameplay CCP wants...
"...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) |
Sertan Deras
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 16:34:00 -
[1509]
Originally by: maria stallion
I think this DEV blog and topic showed us how different CCP and the players look at in game mechanics.
(Can't believe I am going to confirm quote a BoBite, but...)
THIS. There is a serious disconnect between CCP and their players right now, and it's getting wider. Just go look at the economist dev blog. They aren't even on the same page as the people who play their game every day. They are very much going the SoE route, and all you MMO vet's should know, that's bad.
|
Alcrista Somez
Amarr The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 16:35:00 -
[1510]
Originally by: tropic112
Originally by: Alcrista Somez I dont think this isnt about Carriers at all.
Its about slightly lowering the "level cap" in response to younger players who dont like the fact that they cant catch up to players with more sp than them in terms of damage output and battlefield prowess.
Capping the damage output in fleet fights at a Tech2 BS is a way of giving new players a long term (18 months ish as a vague guess) goal interms of good attainable damage output, and also making sure that at that point they can still compete on the battlefield with players carting 50 or 60 mil sp.
I think CCP are worried that carriers and moms in their current role give a single pilot too much damage and so they are trying to tweak things so that the extra SP of an old character WONT mean lots of extra DPS.
So really its about addressing potential issues with eves skilling system as the old players get older and more skilled and the new players are ever further behind when they join the game.
Im not making any comment what so ever on the validity of this. Just saying that I think this is what the real issue is that CCP are trying to resolve.
So what? Just because some guy just finished school does that mean he MUST have what some 50 years old dude worked for all his life ALOT faster? heck NO. work for it like the other one did......
Absolutely. Im just reading a lot of people arguing about what the role of carriers should be and trying to point out that I think as far as CCP are concerned its pretty irrelevent. Theyre just trying to lower what is effectively the level cap for solo DPS.
|
|
Yourbane
Minmatar A.W.M Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 16:37:00 -
[1511]
I forgot one thing : i want my carrier to be HUGE , and i mean it, it is TOTALLY RIDICULOUS to see a 115k armor craft just a tiny bit bigger than my maelstrom, make them three time their actual size, and the ms's 5 or 6 times, that will be a good nerf :p
And to whoever said it , no 5 fighters is crap dps, less than a good bs, and besides, fighters do die quickly if a bs is fighting them .
And about the sony swg thing, its not the only game sony ****** up think about planetside...
And if you want young/old player balance, just introduce gaming skill into EvE, because the only actual skill in EvE atm is fitting your ship right and go for cheap easy and uninteresting ganks. But i think we better forget about that part or all the old players are going to whine cuz a top Ace pilot pwnt their bs with a rifter xD ..
Opinions are mine as usual blabla corp alliance blabla
|
Kildar Divad
Elite Storm Enterprises
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 16:37:00 -
[1512]
If these changes to into effect, I'm selling my carrier.
I anticipate having to sell off all the carrier-related BPO's as well, as demand for carriers will drop substantially.
-- #include stddisclaimer.h
|
Queldonus
Minmatar Contraband Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 16:37:00 -
[1513]
I will be doing the same thing as Emsigma is doing if I don't see this idea completely trashed. All 4 of my accounts will be cancelled! Why should we have to compromise since we actually pay to play this game! Why should everything be fair in life? Its not fair!
Hey CCP!!! WAKE UP!!! Your devs are trying to kill this game and all its fun!
|
Sinder Ohm
Infinite Improbability Inc Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 16:40:00 -
[1514]
I loved this game for the entire time I played it, but it looks like EvE is going SWG. If CCP ignore this 59 page (LOL prolly 60 by the time I finish this post) then I am sorry it makes me very sad it really does.
I will have to say goodbye and thanks for all the fish
I am all out of cronsctrucitve criticism tbh mainly because I am really peed off and the fact that any normal logical person would see that making a very time intensive and expensive ship equal to that of a ship that costs a fraction of the amount of money and invested time is just not logical. So whats the point of posting constructive criticism when it gets dismissed as biased opinion.
|
Recluse Viramor
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 16:42:00 -
[1515]
Originally by: Sertan Deras
Originally by: maria stallion
I think this DEV blog and topic showed us how different CCP and the players look at in game mechanics.
(Can't believe I am going to confirm quote a BoBite, but...)
THIS. There is a serious disconnect between CCP and their players right now, and it's getting wider. Just go look at the economist dev blog. They aren't even on the same page as the people who play their game every day. They are very much going the SoE route, and all you MMO vet's should know, that's bad.
=o No one can bring together a BoB and a Goon like CCP can.
and totally /signed, I was burned by SOE with SWG and I don't like the way CCP has been treating the playerbase lately...
|
Sertan Deras
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 16:45:00 -
[1516]
Originally by: Recluse Viramor
=o No one can bring together a BoB and a Goon like CCP can.
and totally /signed, I was burned by SOE with SWG and I don't like the way CCP has been treating the playerbase lately...
This should be CCP's new litmus test. If Goons AND BoB are agreeing with each other that your idea is stupid, it's probably stupid.
|
Jakoll
Minmatar Universal Exports
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 16:47:00 -
[1517]
No No No No Carriers can be ganked with Battleships as it is. For the amount of training and ISK the carriers damn well should be able to shred a Battleship in 2 secs.
You say balancing? We say nerfing. Why must you "balance the carrier into nothing more than a super logistic ship?
Only ones crying are those who dont fly cap ships Im sure. If they did they would hate the idea. Its perfect the way it is. If ya want something to do, add some launcher hardpoints to the rokh or change the color of an astroid or something. Nerfing the carriers is a BAD IDEA!!!!!
|
Cosmos Elf
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 16:47:00 -
[1518]
Limit carriers to 5 fighters, and then triple their damage. --
|
Prydeless
Vengeance of the Fallen
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 16:51:00 -
[1519]
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.
What we want is pretty basic: We want to make fighter wielding capital ships more reliant on their support fleet and less of a direct nber deathbringer. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why are you concerned with the direction its taking? I see no reason for concern... And how are they direct uber deathbringers? All people have to do is kill of the paper thin fighters and then POOF carrier is incapacitated. wtf is the problem here???
Disclaimer: I am a God. |
Logicycle
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 16:51:00 -
[1520]
Edited by: Logicycle on 22/10/2007 16:52:04 If you nerf carriers, I cancel my subcription.
|
|
Crohnx
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 16:53:00 -
[1521]
Originally by: Kagura Nikon
Originally by: Zareph Edited by: Zareph on 22/10/2007 14:28:14 Disclaimer: I can't fly a carrier, I've never flown a carrier, and I've never seen one in action. However, when I first heard 'there are carriers!' and one of the many reasons I joined the game vs. how they're actually implemented kinda changed my initial excitement.
To me, a carrier is a vessel that is huge, and holds other fighter craft that do most of its dirty work. Most of the items mounted to a carrier are point defense to keep the riff raff away, I'm thinking 'Battlestar Galactica' type of defense with AA and what not, few missle batteries etc.
What I don't really like the idea of is how carriers work. The fighters are basically fancy drones.
They're not real people. To me a carrier should have x amount of fighter bay space, and you have real live players dock up and prepare to launch out of the carrier. The carrier jumps in, the frigates/cruisers/small support craft (aka Raptors in BSG) fire out and kick butt, and hope the carrier survives the encounter so that they can dock and jump free. If the carrier goes, the real live players are royally screwed and have to jump gate back to wherever they came from.
Too me, that would make carriers exciting. otherwise as I understand it they're no more than a giant big drone thing and I view the nerf bat as a necessary evil. But if it could carry 10 - 30 (skill dependent) frigates and another 3 -5 support ships (skill dependent) *that* would be exciting from my point of view. However, again, I've not seen one in action. From the way the blog post reads one carrier could take out a fleet. that seems a bit extreme.
THAt, THAT is what ccp should have aimed for. We would be having none of this problem if this was implemented
I think this is what we all expected from them at the 1st time when we heard carriers are comming to eve....dock inside like in stations ,have some sort of corp hangar there...if not that maybe u could man fighters wich could only work in system where carrier is, they could run on fuel and when that is out well self destruct or something i dont know , theres tons of options here , just not the one ure suggesting.
|
Sinder Ohm
Infinite Improbability Inc Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 16:53:00 -
[1522]
Originally by: Sertan Deras
Originally by: Recluse Viramor
=o No one can bring together a BoB and a Goon like CCP can.
and totally /signed, I was burned by SOE with SWG and I don't like the way CCP has been treating the playerbase lately...
This should be CCP's new litmus test. If Goons AND BoB are agreeing with each other that your idea is stupid, it's probably stupid.
That had me laughing out loud for a few minutes I have copied the quote and may use it later if you dont mind, its gold
|
Turin
Caldari Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 16:54:00 -
[1523]
Originally by: Vandalias
Originally by: Nyack hmm some of us actually has skilled full time on carrier skills i know alot of people (me included) that has:
carrier 5 jump fuel 5 jump calibration 5 capital rep 5 capital remote armor rep 5 fighters 5
personally only got 2 of the above left to skill.. all these skills dont effect much more then carriers and a few might apply to dreads but other then that i cant use these skills to anything but carriers...
Congrats, you are pretty well set to fly a dread as well.
Maybe he doesnt WANT to fly a dread, and ONLY wants a carrier / Mothership. Then those skills are useless. Stop being a stupid troll, and posting just to be a jerk about it.
_________________________________
|
Pallidum Treponema
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 16:54:00 -
[1524]
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.
Yes, I am biased. Carriers and motherships has been my goal for the past year. If I was playing WoW, perhaps my goal would've been to acquire an epic flying mount, or some kind of epic armor set. Regardless, it has been something to look forward to, and a personal achievement once I reach that goal.
That still doesn't change the fact that I believe this is an inherently flawed idea. For one thing, it really doesn't solve two of the major problems with eve today.
Problem one: Lag. This is THE biggest problem in eve right now. As previously stated, this change is not made because of lag, but because of balance issues. If nothing else, this change would make the problem of lag even worse, as it'd require more support on the field for the same number of carriers, there would still be the same amount of fighters out there to cause lag, and trying to assign fighters during lag is a near impossible task.
Problem two: Blobs. This is related to problem one. This change does not solve problem two, in fact it just makes it worse. You are once again forcing a larger number of support on the field for the same number of carriers. In addition, pilots that would previously fly their carriers and let others fly support would now be more inclined to fly second accounts, to control some of those fighters while their carriers are sitting safely hugging POS shields. This further increase the amount of blob in the game, further increase the amount of lag and the ONLY thing I can see that would be good for CCP in this scenario is the additional income of second or third accounts. This is, of course, assuming the carrier pilots will keep on playing.
THIS is constructive criticism. Please note that neither of the two problems is something I'm the first to state. On the contrary, both these points have been brought up numerous times over the course of over SEVENTEEN HUNDRED posts so far. It would be good if CCP acknowledged these points of constructive criticism rather than having representatives accuse the playerbase of bias.
In fact, how about you go ahead and admit that this suggestion was a horribly flawed one and that you are promising to NOT implement it, nor anything remotely similar to this. Then you may go ahead with writing a devblog about what the problem REALLY is about and thoroughly explaining why this is perceived as a problem and ask the community for suggestions as for how to solve this. I'm sure you'd get a whole lot more people agreeing with you if you did that. You'd also get a lot more creative criticism and input, and less enraged players.
- Palli
PS: I've already heard from a large number of players that are seriously considering quitting eve if this change goes through. I am considering this myself. Tonight, I will be going through all my accounts and canceling every single one. I will be going to Fanfest, and once there I will be taking this up with CCP. Depending on the outcome, I may or may not resume my subscriptions. And no, you may no have my stuff. -- MC's Swedish squidshark
|
Reprimander
The Littlest Hobos Insurgency
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 16:56:00 -
[1525]
What a joke.
Let me tell you what this will create - LARGER BLOBS.
Much like the ill-thought out cyno jammer HP level, which was supposed to reduce blob warfare but actively encouraged it.
Now, every carrier instead of being frontlined on its own merit, will want a nice buddy so it can delegate fighters and project its power.
It won't reduce lag (it will make it worse), it will encourage larger blobs, and as far as I can tell its completely pointless. What exactly are you hoping to achieve?
May the bigger blob win.
CCP, you should be trying to think of ways NOT to encourage massive blobs, not rushing out ill-thought out proposals to an unbroken system.
OMG a solo carrier can kill a BS... big ******* deal...
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 16:57:00 -
[1526]
Originally by: Prydeless wtf is the problem here???
I think the main problem is that CCP hasn't got a clue to how their game works.....
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Kronn Blackthorne
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 16:58:00 -
[1527]
Edited by: Kronn Blackthorne on 22/10/2007 17:01:29 cancelled my 3 accounts ,and all of sudden , everything is fine , just thinkin how stupid i was to accept all those changes they made without cancelling earlier .
learnin from mistakes
strangestuff , i manage to cancel one account , the account management page is down ....
The Frenchy |
Xilimyth Derlin
OldBastardsPub SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 16:58:00 -
[1528]
Edited by: Xilimyth Derlin on 22/10/2007 17:05:46
Originally by: Alcrista Somez
Absolutely. Im just reading a lot of people arguing about what the role of carriers should be and trying to point out that I think as far as CCP are concerned its pretty irrelevent. Theyre just trying to lower what is effectively the level cap for solo DPS.
(EDIT 1: Bolded word in above quote)
Don't you think that's the problem though? The thing they ARE trying not to let get out of control?
This is a prime example of escalation getting WAY out of control. Right now the devs are considering EVE Online a growing concern, evolving it and trying to make sure it lasts as long as other venerable games like Ultima Online and EQ (go ahead and flame saying they're killing it at this point, I know people want to O-o).
The problem is, at this rate, if the solution isn't changed from BIGGER = BETTER = MORE DPS you're greatly increasing the problem that everyone's favorite counter is.... TEAMPLAY. "Oh you have a roaming nano-gang.... bring friends" has been brought up a lot, and the current capital situation just doesn't back up those arguments.
It's not a stupid change in any way. It's a stupid change for SOLO DPS yes.... but when have the devs ever said "Capitals = Solo".... even from the initial blogs and by design they wanted them to be team ships. They just need to work out that clunky interface is all.
|
Caribardi
State Outfitters
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 17:04:00 -
[1529]
What exactly is the percieved problem with carriers? I wasn't under the impression they were broken on the plus side to the point of needing a major negative change like this. Is there some data to support the theory? I think maybe the MS pwnmobiles in low sec are a bit much but it has been shown that a sufficiently determined force can give one of these fellows his due, albeit in an extremely cheesy manner.
Perhaps as more people have the skills and means to field carriers the amount of lag generated by the fighter clouds is causing problems. This would be one way to reduce it and perhaps give the architects a little breathing room for coming up with a more elegant solution. |
FuQue
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 17:06:00 -
[1530]
I've been following this thread for a while now, and I STILL don't know - what is the problem with Carriers as they are now, again? I think someone forgot to tell me.
"You're doing it wrong"
|
|
Jehuty Vanricadia
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 17:08:00 -
[1531]
I wonder... Why are you concentrating on things that are not broken to " fix " ?
Fleet battles are still **** POS's are still **** Station services are still **** heat is still **** drones are still ****
How about just concentrating your mind-boggling changes on something useful? What a find funny and something Evil Thug said on SHC:
Quote: So instead of bringing 5 - 6 motherships you shall bring 40 more support AND motherships".
But they want to encourage small gang pvp! Just like with station services because hell who brings a 50 man bs gang when you can do it with 10 battleships! Just like pos modules! Hello cyno jammer! Shall we attack this with 10 battleships or 50?
PLEASE just think before you act. Many of us enjoy the game but these sorts of stupid changes make us wish we hadnt bothered with some of the investments we have made. If my mothership becomes a pos hugging fighter assigning piece of **** whats the point in me logging in? So other people can have fun? Thats nice and all but after a day or two its going to get very boring.
|
ArmyOfMe
hirr Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 17:09:00 -
[1532]
Edited by: ArmyOfMe on 22/10/2007 17:09:15
Originally by: Kronn Blackthorne Edited by: Kronn Blackthorne on 22/10/2007 17:01:29 cancelled my 3 accounts ,and all of sudden , everything is fine , just thinkin how stupid i was to accept all those changes they made without cancelling earlier .
learnin from mistakes
strangestuff , i manage to cancel one account , the account management page is down ....
gonna do the same if the changes comes live. I wont bother to play anymore if ccp does a sony
|
ER0X
Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 17:10:00 -
[1533]
Originally by: Prydeless 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.
What we want is pretty basic: We want to make fighter wielding capital ships more reliant on their support fleet and less of a direct nber deathbringer. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why are you concerned with the direction its taking? I see no reason for concern... And how are they direct uber deathbringers? All people have to do is kill of the paper thin fighters and then POOF carrier is incapacitated. wtf is the problem here???
QFT.
Furthermore it also appears completely contradictory to what Oveur presented to the community in his Dev blog on the 2007.09.10 23:24:11 which can be found here.
Oveur Blog
- Edit note: Trinity 2 in November is using DirectX 9.0. The Trinity 2 engine is able to handle things such as fleet battles and large NPC encounters much better than the current one. That is what's being referred to as an "optimization" in the paragraph above but now properly emphasized with this note.
This leads us to everything else in our next expansion, focusing on improvements more than ever.
Drones Revisited
"About time" is probably the first thing that comes to mind. Not only are we improving the interface, we're working on the logic behind them. This should hopefully lead to them being more consistent in control and abolish their free will. Assist and Guard are new commands coming in, we're getting lots of new named drones and we're adding a new constraint on drones, bandwidth. With this, bandwidth determines the number of drones you can control, allowing the dronebay to be considerably increased on drone ships, accommodating more waves or variety. Ubar? Ja!
Edit note: Bandwidth referenced here is not in reference to your internet connection. It's to un-nerf specialized drone ships and allow more differentation between ships. There is also specific Drone Region content in this update.
|
Prydeless
Vengeance of the Fallen
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 17:19:00 -
[1534]
Originally by: ER0X
Originally by: Prydeless 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.
What we want is pretty basic: We want to make fighter wielding capital ships more reliant on their support fleet and less of a direct nber deathbringer. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why are you concerned with the direction its taking? I see no reason for concern... And how are they direct uber deathbringers? All people have to do is kill of the paper thin fighters and then POOF carrier is incapacitated. wtf is the problem here???
QFT.
Furthermore it also appears completely contradictory to what Oveur presented to the community in his Dev blog on the 2007.09.10 23:24:11 which can be found here.
Oveur Blog
- Edit note: Trinity 2 in November is using DirectX 9.0. The Trinity 2 engine is able to handle things such as fleet battles and large NPC encounters much better than the current one. That is what's being referred to as an "optimization" in the paragraph above but now properly emphasized with this note.
This leads us to everything else in our next expansion, focusing on improvements more than ever.
Drones Revisited
"About time" is probably the first thing that comes to mind. Not only are we improving the interface, we're working on the logic behind them. This should hopefully lead to them being more consistent in control and abolish their free will. Assist and Guard are new commands coming in, we're getting lots of new named drones and we're adding a new constraint on drones, bandwidth. With this, bandwidth determines the number of drones you can control, allowing the dronebay to be considerably increased on drone ships, accommodating more waves or variety. Ubar? Ja!
Edit note: Bandwidth referenced here is not in reference to your internet connection. It's to un-nerf specialized drone ships and allow more differentation between ships. There is also specific Drone Region content in this update.
And there ya have it. You idea zulu is ftl...
Disclaimer: I am a God. |
Derrios
Dirty Deeds Corp. Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 17:19:00 -
[1535]
Worst
Idea
Ever. ----------------------------------------------- New T2 ships give me a raging hard Deimos. |
Phyra
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 17:20:00 -
[1536]
...it sounds bad. Go fix things. Go make POSes fun for the first time. Make a POS interface that does not make you sit around for hours just to set them up. Make them auto-set up. Make them look like a station instead of a huge pile of space junk randomly thrown together. Thousands of things. Go fix drones. Or just go away....
I haven't been able to play for quite a few months. And as a good carebear I used the time for training up some long term stuff. I trained carrier related skills because carriers and moms seem to have become a necessity if you want to be a good hauler these days ... next thing I hear is "jump drive freighters are coming". Felt a bit bad. Sounded like I had invested in the wrong skill. Can I be relieved now, seeing that they only referred to nerfed carriers? Man and I had thought I needed to work for another super expensive capital ship skill....
Support role for carriers sounds awesome: You could make it so that carriers can give out free ice-cream for BS pilots to support them in the heat of battle. And also coffee and energy drinks to make the lag go away...
Palli, take it easy, maybe they come to senses...
Phyra
|
Griffinator
Gallente Contraband Inc. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 17:21:00 -
[1537]
60 pages got the hint yet BAD BAD BAD idea this is not Pony this is CCP
|
Zilkin
Murder-Death-Kill
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 17:23:00 -
[1538]
Just posting here to show my support for never implementing these changes.
|
Lord Rahvin
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 17:24:00 -
[1539]
Um hello? key word here is CARRIER!!! its not a carrier if it cant use more drones/fighters than any other frigate. If you make these changes the carriers stop being carriers, and become industrial ships whose only purpose is to haul around fighters for other people. And lets face it, every gang or corp has idiots in it. I wouldn't feel comfortable having to give 100mil in fighters to some idiot just to have him lose them in the first minute of engagements.
|
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar MASS HOMICIDE Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 17:24:00 -
[1540]
Peopel can hold a bit on the cancelign accounts since Its pretty fair to beleive that after this response CCp will not implement that change AS IS. They will need to try a new alternative.
I am still favorable to BUFFING BS to solve the issue they want to solve.
If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough |
|
The Economist
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 17:24:00 -
[1541]
Originally by: Phyra
Support role for carriers sounds awesome: You could make it so that carriers can give out free ice-cream for BS pilots to support them in the heat of battle. And also coffee and energy drinks to make the lag go away...
Now there's an idea.
I wouldn't mind a carrier that could give out tea; after all, the British empire was built on cups of tea [and indentured labour, but we already have minmatar for that].
Sig removed. Please keep sigs to 400x120 pixels and 24000 bytes in size or less. -Kaemonn |
css1
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 17:27:00 -
[1542]
I'd like to add my resounding NO to this suggestion. It stinks actually, to see all the training time invested in getting into a carrier being made ineffective in one nerf... NO NO NO...
|
Xacal
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 17:28:00 -
[1543]
Let me reply to this proposal as the carrier pilot I am:
1) Carriers are NOT solo-pwn-machines. IF you're at a station, and you can avoid being bumped, a carrier can an will engage most targets. Still, they will either escape and warp away or dock before you can kill them most of the times. To be really effective, you need support to web/scramble them. I've seen more than one carrier get killed when trying to do that, if only one bump from a hostile gang works.
2) Carriers NEED support fleets as they are today, since the fighters can easily removed from their range if the target warps off. Any carrier fighting away from a station is at the eminent danger of getting scrambled, unarmed and shoot to death by any reasonably small, but smart gang.
3) Fighters are supposed to be anti-BS weapons, and the reason why a squad of carriers can totally turn the battle against a much larger fleet of BSes. Try using them against other capitals, and unless you're on a reasonably big carrier task force, capable of concentrating 40-60 fighters on a target, you've little hope of ever breaking their capital tanks. Reducing the control capacity to 5 fighters will only make them even less desirable as capital ships. Everyone and their dogs will have dreads...
4) Even with 15 normal drones, a carrier barely does more damage than a pair of Dominix, which is quite pitiful for such a huge, expensive ship. If it is using fighters, the damage is much better, but still not good enough to guarantee that a carrier will be able to kill a BS pilot unless the BS pilot is plain dumb.(I am considering the BS pilot will warp away)
5) Fighters usually are not delegated to other pilots because, most of the time, the carrier pilot will have to replace those 20mill fighters when the dumbass get them killed. Forcing them to be delegated not only increases the number of support ships required per fleet, but also makes the carriers even more vulnerable targets if the support gets destroyed(and today that is already a death sentence for the carrier). There is NOT any unbalance to the way these ships are used today. In fact, only ship that causes a lot of trouble are MOMs, but then I expected it given that they cost 36bill... And the main reason why the give that much trouble is because they are hard to keep scrambled, not because they have the firepower of two carriers...
6) The Triage mode already makes the carrier pilot to choose logistics functions OR combat functions. Why the need to nerf it even further???
7) Do not fix what is not broken. Perhaps carriers aren't exactly used the way you wished them to be used, but they are not unbalanced, people know how to use them and how they add to a fleet, and they do not take the function of other ships.
8) If CCP goes ahead with this idea, I've a Thanatos for sale and a second account to cancel(cyno alt for when my corp buddies in a different timezone are asleep and I need to haul POS fuel...not needed if i sell the carrier)
|
Jaabaa Prime
Dental Drilling Corporation
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 17:28:00 -
[1544]
What really is the problem with carriers and motherships CCP ?
The fact that they can fry a battleship ?
Considering the ISK and SP investment involved in getting into one AND the risk involved taking them into direct PvP engagements, I think that it is already balanced.
All you have to do is remove the super caps invulnerability to being warp scrambled and no one (in their right mind) will take them anywhere without the required support.
That would also help towards solving the low sec gankers in their MoMs.
Get your heads out of the sand, do you know how much the player base has invested in getting the skills (ISK), them trained (TIME) and buying one (ISK+TIME) ?
Limiting the main combat ability of these ships is not the answer. --
|
Corden
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 17:30:00 -
[1545]
No offense, but I think I speak for alot of people, you know the ones who have been playing your game for years, spending years training for the carrier and other caps just so we can WTFPWN others, because we have had our share of dying for the years it took to get it, took time to raise the money to buy the ship, 20 million per fighter. and your going to take years of work away from your most loyal customers. This is very uncool! I would even bet, that people wont train for your capital ships anymore.
|
Hyron
Nazcan Technologies
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 17:31:00 -
[1546]
This idea is stupid and ridiculous.
I did not spend all that time training and npcing for a carrier just so I could use it to help other people. And as said before - 60 pages CCP, take notice.
This idea is stupid and ridiculous.
Hyron
|
Turin
Caldari Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 17:32:00 -
[1547]
Originally by: Vandalias
Originally by: Seiver D'amross i agree with this compleatly, the ammount of drones were nerfted once in Shiva we dont need it again. Caps are designed to be a anti-most-everything-ship they are CAPTIAL SHIPS. if you cut off there b@lls then all you have is a oversized domi and you should not call them caps anymore.
Considering the cap ship designers are looking to change them away from that role would lead me to believe that they weren't designed for that at all. But then again they're just the designers, what the hell do they know about what the ships were designed for.
Have I mentioned I think your just a trolling jerk yet?
_________________________________
|
Li via
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 17:33:00 -
[1548]
Anyone started and over/under on when this hits 100 pages?
|
Torze
The Arrow Project Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 17:34:00 -
[1549]
Edited by: Torze on 22/10/2007 17:34:31 While I don't fly carriers (yet) I've been quite confused about what role CCP wants them to actually play. When I first read about them coming into the game I was left with a certain expectations about fleet battles that never developed.
1) I felt that originally, Carriers were suppose to be frontline OFFENSIVE support for battleships. That battleships were still meant to be the bulk of a fleet.
2) That motherships were going to act kinda like their name. That they would be brought in and using their cloning vats carry a corp/alliance fleet with them to the fight. I always kinda envisioned that you'd open a cyno and warp in the capital fleet then the support fleet would launch from the mothership.
3) That the titan would be the command ship. Not adding too much in firepower other than the DD but, really there as moral support (hence the high fleet bonuses).
4) That dreadnaughts were primarily to take down POS's and other capitals.
So, I guess for my constructive critisim of the this idea, I'd say. Figure out what the actual role for the ship is. What does CCP think the designed role is for each class of ship. Please keep in mind for example that each race has a different philosophy when it comes to combat and so therefore each ship would have slightly different roles within each empires fleet. It's also important to keep in mind that balancing should be done within the empire's fleets not just because of PvP (we do all fly their ships not the other way around.)
Just seems to me that CCP has lost it's original vision as to what the capital ships were suppose to bring to the game.
|
Jaabaa Prime
Dental Drilling Corporation
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 17:35:00 -
[1550]
Originally by: Corden I would even bet, that people wont train for your capital ships anymore.
I would sign this but I already have invested the time and ISK.
I guess I can sign it for those that haven't taken the plunge yet.
Just wait until people have invested loads of training in black ops and then they get nerfed too.
CCP, are you out to annoy your player base ?
(Just thought about the comment about not haven been given the nerf bat yet, I think that you invented the T5 version and don't need anyone elses) --
|
|
Floppy96
Asgard Schiffswerften Ev0ke
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 17:54:00 -
[1551]
Originally by: OSughhi to change role of a very expensive and long timing consume ship! Is like after I raise my boy for 10 year, he will change sex because ... is not liking. This nerf will send carriers and people who are useing them back to battleship age.
signed
if this come true you kick all the log therm players that play the game for jears in the back .
My Vote : No
|
Veng3ance
Prophets Of a Damned Universe
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 17:54:00 -
[1552]
Oh... was it mentioned somewhere on these 60 pages that assigning fighters in a lagged out system is a JOKE.
Oh yeah, another reason to not implement this god awful idea.
|
iqplayer
Caldari Dragon's Rage Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 17:56:00 -
[1553]
TBH, if after 60 pages you haven't realized that the players really HATE this proposal, then what I'm going to say is probably wasted anyways. But I'm going to chime in, if nothing else, to lend the weight of another post on the pile.
First, what happened to the 'sandbox' that we're playing in? Last time I played in a sandbox, my parents didn't tell me how to build my castle. No rules on how I used my tools. The same tools are available to everyone, and the losses on carriers and MS should be proof that they're pretty vulnerable/balanced already. Yes, they ARE a force multiplier - but that's what they're supposed to be, right? RIGHT??!
So no, we hate your idea. We don't want to see it modified, we want to see it thrown away. Or at least maybe explain better what the problem is your trying to fix. I was in ASCN when carriers first came out and did nothing but sit at a POS delegating fighters. It SUCKED! WE DON'T WANT TO DELEGATE FIGHTERS! Or at least it should be only an option, not a requirement. At least at that point you could delegate fighters and go afk in the safety of the shields (or run an alt account in the battle). Now, since you can't delegate inside the shields, you'd have to sit there, doing little, just to make sure someone didn't come gank you at the POS. Or wait - you didn't really think people were going to put ineffective carriers and MS on the frontlines, to repair someone, when there are Logistics ships built to do this, much cheaper, much more effective because of faster locktimes, and able to actually run multiple reppers non stop?
I'm sorry if you feel people are coming down hard on this. Frankly, it seems like noone gave it any thought at all. If you'd said this was to fix lag, you would have had some supporters, but you claim this isn't about lag at all. So, without lag as a factor, it's stupid. It changes the role of a ship that was supposed to be offensive, and that had several changes made to encourage putting them on the frontline. People have trained for months now, and spent Billions of isk to reach this point. And now you want to change the ship into a completely different role, countering previous tweaks? Are you starting to understand our anger at all?
You need to explain the problem you want to fix better if you want us to help fix it. Why are (super)capitals such a problem on the battlefield? You do realize fighters are useless unless there's support to warp scramble the target? That the major 'feature' of fighters - following in warp - is one most carriers pilots want to be able to turn OFF?
I've flown carriers in battle, lost 3 so far, replaced every one. One of my chars now flies a MS. IMHO, it was worth it for the immense cost - but remote ECM and Triage are both worthless. Regular reppers are 'ok', though only really suitable for BS (if you prelock them) and capital support, and they use brutal amounts of cap. If you want to have a real discussion on what's 'right' and what's 'wrong' with carriers and MS, why not talk directly to some of them? I've seen all the long time MS pilots posting in this thread - and they ALL detest this idea.
If, on the other hand, you're trying to solve the lag issues, this is the right direction. Not only will you decrease the number of fighters in use drastically, a lot of the veteran players will quit Eve as well, if I'm reading the amount of frustration in this thread correctly. Heck, many normal Eve players will likely quit too, as they see what their corp has worked so hard to build turned to garbage, and their leadership leaving the game.
So far, you seem to think people are overreacting (or it seemed that way in the way you were blowing off what people were saying in the first 10 pages - I quit reading). Maybe you think I'm overreacting. Are **60** pages of people overreacting?? From both sides of the war? Including prominent figures of big alliances?
Don't rethink this. Throw it away. Quick.
|
Hermaphrodiety
Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 17:57:00 -
[1554]
Thanks to Tieger for this brilliant sig.
---------------------------------------------
|
Kwint Sommer
Incoherent Inc Otaku Invasion
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 18:01:00 -
[1555]
Originally by: Hermaphrodiety
Thanks to Tieger for this brilliant sig.
I'm stealing this sig, I know it's bad form but it's for a good cause. If it's really an issue drop me an eve-mail.
|
Bein Glorious
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 18:01:00 -
[1556]
I have really thought about this for a bit, and I actually think it could work better than most people want to admit.
Lets assume these things:
a) CCP feels that carriers are too effective in fleet combat; not necessarily just on their own, but in huge 20-40+ carrier blobs. As this blog and other statements before it have indicated, this just isn't how CCP wanted these ships to be used. b) In order to discourage huge, crazy numbers of carriers in fleets, something has to get nerfed somehow.
With that in mind, the change as described in the dev blog means that a carrier can't maximize its DPS potential unless it has at least one but optimally three ships with it to control fighters. Give five fighters to one to three gangmates - that's it.
So let's say we're in a hypothetical situation with this change in place where you have the defenders with 20 carriers (a conservative example) and a 40 man support fleet of BS, HACs, inties, and so forth. Let's say that this is a cynojammed system without a jump bridge, so nobody from either side can bring any more capitals inside of it. The attackers have a 70 man fleet of BS, HACs, inties, and so forth, and they jump into system. The defending carriers have all delegated their fighters to their support fleet that has assembled around the gate, waiting for the attackers to jump in. The attackers engage and the fight ensues, and as the attackers destroy ships controlling fighters, the delegated fighters return to their respective carriers and the effective DPS from them goes down.
Now to prevent this, the carriers can come onto the same field as their support fleet instead of sitting outside of a POS and remotely repair their support, keeping them alive and making sure that their fighters continue to do their DPS. In this way, carriers are both brought to the front lines and need their support, and it makes the remote assistance abilities more important. There's no denying that it could work in that sense.
You could still have the problem of carrier/MS spider tanks being amazingly difficult to break, but I wonder if practical application of some Void Bombs (the energy neutralizer bombs) from stealth bombers could deal with that.
Nonetheless, it isn't absolutely essential that this change gets implemented, but I think in a situation like the above, it could be a change for the better. Other modifications I could consider fair would be to let motherships control ten fighters/drones and not just five, maybe making fighters a little cheaper, and also to make Capital Shield Transporters use MUCH LESS CPU, since they are really just too hard to fit on any ship (seriously, try it some time, it's not right). Fighter delegation could also use a little bit of streamlining, since the current way of right click -> give fight0r could be difficult to deal with in a laggy situation. That would be a job for the UI department, I suppose.
Of course, at this point, it would be difficult for CCP to convince anyone that a change like this is truly necessary, since it's now two years since carriers first came out and one year before their use really got popular. Too many people have trained or are training carrier skills, or fly carriers or produce carriers, or want to fly carriers for what they are now, and the infrastructure now in place makes people less willing to budge - a problem of inertia, if you will.
I'll get flamed for saying this kind of stuff, but if it means I get less popular in the eyes of some loonie with anger management issues, I think I'll live through it. |
Khamiz
Utopian Research I.E.L. Hedonistic Imperative
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 18:02:00 -
[1557]
Somebody put you in the wrong department Zulupark?
This change is idiotic. Basically a carrier pilot could be killed by any amount of battleships if they had enough firepower. 5 fighters can easily be tanked by a battleship. So carriers (1b) are now less powerful than battleships (100m).
Fantastic.
Love you ccp.
|
Brock McF
Caldari Einherjar Rising
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 18:02:00 -
[1558]
A response from CCP would be nice.
100pages here we come.
Lets address the real issues in EVE not this.
Linkage |
Xaen
Caldari Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 18:05:00 -
[1559]
Originally by: Kwint Sommer
Originally by: Hermaphrodiety
Thanks to Tieger for this brilliant sig.
I'm stealing this sig, I know it's bad form but it's for a good cause. If it's really an issue drop me an eve-mail.
That img is highly appropriate. Sadly it's also highly inappropriate and will soon get removed I'm sure.
And you thought the goons were capable of a threadnought. They've got nothing on CCP Zulupark. --
Support fixing the EVE UI
|
Matthew
Caldari BloodStar Technologies
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 18:06:00 -
[1560]
Originally by: Msihcs Neff
Originally by: Matthew
Originally by: Msihcs Neff If you would like some support for what i am saying take a look at this last armageddon day, what did everyone do?
They hopped into capitals and had a lot of fun with that, if thats not proof that people love capitals what is?
Well, it's not. All it's really proof of is that people took advantage of having super'ed characters to try out the ships they're least likely to be able to try out easily any other way.
Maybe True Matthew but you cant deny the appeal of capital ships, the few times i've had my capitals in combat are some of my favorite eve memories and this nerf threatens those moments.
Fair enough. Personally, nothing for me combat-wise has topped my first week of near-suicidal ratting in a Bantam for pure fun. I'm very wary of the straight "bigger is better" progression though. Sure, bigger ship, bigger booms, it's cool for a bit. But it doesn't take long before you want to "progress" again to something even bigger. And of course as everyone else is "progressing" alongside you, you never really gain. That's why I'm very much in favour of the high-level options meaning significantly different gameplay, and meaning more actual player and team development as well as just more SP on the total, and more isk for your ship.
Originally by: ER0X Sorry Mathew I know you mean well but honestly *WinKs* I would pay good money to be a fly on the wall when you bring out your Moros/Revelation enter siege and deathbring the pain to a half dozen BS orbiting you at ohhh 5-10m/s lolRazz. Even funnier would be 3-6 macharial class faction BS.
Which is the weakness of the dread that it requires the support fleet to cover. I do believe I mentioned that.
Every size of weapon system is less effective on targets smaller than it's designed for. Why should capital ships be any different? Capital "deathbringers" are supposed to bring death to capitals. Half a dozen cruisers set up for the job is going to make mincemeat of a lone battleship, why should it be a problem that half a dozen battleships do the same to a dread? Admittedly dreads are less flexible about fitting for smaller targets than the other ship classes, but then it is a more specialized class to begin with.
The sort of capital "deathbringer" you seem to be envisaging sounds like a pwnmobile that hoses down swathes of anything sub-capital. While cool for the person flying it, that's an extremely bad idea for everyone else, as it would do the one thing that eve has always tried to avoid - obsoleting the lower ship classes.
Oh, and to address the "disproportionate" cost and training of capitals justifying a massive power step - remember to factor in the one asset people always forget. Player numbers. Each pilot is an asset in itself. The ability to concentrate firepower and other abilities into a single player is in itself a benefit over and above the raw increase. That is why the cost and skill progression will always be non-linear.
Originally by: Nagatok WHY should a completely new player be able to catch up to a person that has played the game for 4 years
If this was about "catching them up", then they'd just change the character creation so that everyone started in battleships, carriers could be trained in a month and some new super-mega-caps released for the veterans.
There is a vast difference between "catching them up" and making sure they are not rendered obsolete. You're still the carrier pilot, you're still the top of the pile, but you should need the younger players to be fully effective (and as more than just mining and hauling slaves), and they should need you too. Just as there needed to be sybiosis between fighters and builders before both got seriously involved in 0.0, so to there needs to be symbiosis between new and old players. Otherwise the new players will end up quitting before ever getting into a cap-ship saturated 0.0 ------- There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines. |
|
Ort Lofthus
Wildlands Heavy Technologies FOUNDATI0N
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 18:08:00 -
[1561]
Honestly, this is about the worst idea CCP can implement. I currently don't see much problem with carriers in the small scale fights I am in, as they can be quite vulnerable to damps and ECM. We had two carriers shut down by 3 good ewar pilots the other day. Its not only possible, its not particularly difficult.
I see carriers as this: high cost specialized ships that multiply the effectiveness of a single pilot and can be rapidly deployed anywhere. They can keep the gang up with support and apply a high amount of firepower immidiatly. In its current form, it counters blobs as you need less pilots to fight and win against more but at the same time its not as isk efficient as having more. I am sure most of eve sees this the same way.
Its all well and good that CCP has a vision for carriers to be a DPS buff and medic for the supported gang, but the simple fact of the matter is that carriers have been in the game for too long and represent too much of an investment by the player base to be hit with such a major nerf. They perform the medic role well and they perform the DPS support well, even though they are not delegating fighters. You at CCP worked hard to get carriers on the front lines, and now that they are there you want to nerf them so that they might as well not be there. We'll be back to safespotted carriers delegating all of their fighters. Heck, this nerf actually makes carriers worse on the front than they were before the HP buff.
I guess the triage module will be seeing a lot more use ...
p.s. I hear that there are problems with 'carrier blobs', and I assume this is due to the chain repping more than anything else. After all, 10 carriers represents what, 25 battleships worth of firepower and around 40 worth of isk cost? From experience I can tell you they are not overpowered in small gang because they are easily countered by 2 dedicated ewar ships. The only thing I can think of, as I have no experience with these blobs, is that remote rep makes them too hard to kill. The obvious solution is to make dreads carrier killers by buffing DPS and maybe introducing a skill to reduce siege cycle time and stront use so they can better control deployment and are stuck for 5ish minutes rather than 10. Exposure time goes down, but you are not going to get carrier-killing dreads into a fight without some assurances that they can get in and out safely.
Seriously CCP, I don't know what this nerf is supposed to fix, but it makes carriers in small gangs much much less attractive and requires more pilots for the carrier blobs. Carrier pilots who were blobbing before will still blob, but now they will need 2 more pilots a piece to have the same effect. Supertanked sensor boosted abaddons anyone?
|
Team leader
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 18:08:00 -
[1562]
omg wot a load of twaddle c'mon ccp carry's dont need nerfing they need more powah give us longer jump range more fighters so we can kill the newbs who keep whining on about the capital pilots who have way to much isk/skils/ships they should have started playing the game when we did i bet they wont like the fact we used to get no insurance wen we lost a battle ship haaaah up ur pipe nubbers get over it and train some skils let the cap pilots alone damm whinner's
|
Mifter Hogdido
Amarr The 0ri Origin Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 18:11:00 -
[1563]
I've said it before and I will say it again. This is a terrible idea and unlike in the past where I stood quietly on the side lines not speaking out this has my full attention as I am just nearly able to fly a carrier myself after so long of training.
I firmly feel that CCP should fire the man who suggested this idea; this idea will never have my support. -----------------
Its "the" by the way, not whatever the made up use of letters "teh" means. |
Gavriel Black
Amarr Disillusioned Perfection Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 18:12:00 -
[1564]
No offence ccp, but why do you come up with stupid ideas like this? Took me forever to get a curse, now i have one you nerfed nos. Now my alt can finally use a carrier, you want to nerf those. Honestly, sometimes i think devs just come up with silly ideas so they can warrent their jobs.
---
Mod my signature mods, i dare you o.- |
jokerb
Caldari THE INQUISITI0N
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 18:14:00 -
[1565]
So now we expect a yes or no. Not the mushroom treatment. Mushroom treatment was reserved for SOE's playerbase. I came from there to here because at the time you didn't treat us like we did not matter, obviously times have changed.
Are you going to go through with it YES or NO. No need for us all to bicker amongst ourselves any longer, give us an answer.
YES or NO?
|
Turin
Caldari Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 18:15:00 -
[1566]
Originally by: CCP Eris Discordia Verone gets a cookie
Also it would help if people could try to look passed their own bias when they reply with constructive criticism.
Takk
PS for the right bribe I can slap, kick or throw stuff at him because he sits right beside me
all this does is tell me you have already decided to go through with this regardless of what the playerbase wants.
If the numerous ammounts of pages previously didnt contain one "unbiased" and "constructive" post, then you clearly did not read the entire thread. Why read something that disagrees with something you have already determined to do anyways? So, instead, you come in and give cookies to the 1 out of 100 that agree with you, and pretend everyone else is biased? Nice. I guess I need to speak with my wallet.
_________________________________
|
Ztrain
Evolution Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 18:17:00 -
[1567]
This just in!!! Discovered the real reason for the nurf. In building the new game engine the incompetent coders built in to the interface controls a hard coded limit of 5 drones. Because this change would be too costly in man hours and ability to fix they are now trying to slip it in as a new "balancing" rather then stating what it is.
Z CCP (Producers of Slide Show Online) takin the fun out of EVE, one patch at a time. |
Reptzo
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 18:17:00 -
[1568]
Originally by: jokerb So now we expect a yes or no. Not the mushroom treatment. Mushroom treatment was reserved for SOE's playerbase. I came from there to here because at the time you didn't treat us like we did not matter, obviously times have changed.
Are you going to go through with it YES or NO. No need for us all to bicker amongst ourselves any longer, give us an answer.
YES or NO?
I agree, can we get some kin of answer from ccp?? anything more than you think we are just whining. Can we get a yes or no.
|
Matthew
Caldari BloodStar Technologies
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 18:18:00 -
[1569]
Originally by: Sertan Deras Umm, a character with more SP should be better than you. What's the issue here? If someone put all their time and money in to flying a carrier, they should have the advantages of doing so. If you nerf the damage cap to be "tech2 battleship" level, what's the point of flying a carrier again? What's the point of doing a year of training for a ship that won't out damage one that takes far less training?
If you fly it solo, not much point at all. But that's not the whole story. Take this possibility (numbers for sake of argument, balance the gang synergy, t1 to T2 conversion to what makes you happy):
Carrier solo = 1 Tech 2 BS
10 new char tech1 battleships = 7 tech2 BS
10 new char tech1 battleships + experienced carrier = 12 tech2 BS (so carrier now equiv to 5 Tech 2 BS).
In that last situation, you want to be in the carrier, your younger mates want you to be in it too, and everyone is happy. If instead you make the carrier as powerful alone as in the group (5 T2 BS each), then you're far more likely to gang together with your experienced carrier pilot mate (for 10 T2 BS equiv) and have no use for the new chars (and probably go out and toast them instead). ------- There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines. |
Dave PSI
Haendlergilde S.E.R.A
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 18:18:00 -
[1570]
What a stupid idea, cripple a 12bil MS (or double the price if you didnt build them yourself) to a dominix with more armor. At a point when they seemed to explode on a daily/weekly basis??? These Supercaps are worth as much as 200 Dominix and they get hit by the evil batnerf because they cant be ganked from a handful BS ??? Or wait when the get attacked these officer mod monsters could really kill some BS. Wow what a drama. Atm there is really no need for a Supercap nerve (except for low sec MS ganking perhaps, but than nothing so drastic, simply allow dictors to drop bubbles in low sec when they are in range of a supercap or anything like that ).
Also a Carrier could be taken down with a handful BS. Perhaps only your 5x armor bonus some patches ago was a bit to much, but to be honest it seems to work. Also carriers are chanceless against smartbombing, weak against dampening and shooting drones, DD, so if you attack in an organized group you have all advantages an your side, with the chance to do an incredible damage at a very low risk. The only problem atm is, that organized groups can't work properly when they suffer from lag while the cap ships have much more reaction time because of their armor bonus. But like already said, fix the lag problem first, fix the game mechanic of claiming Space.
DON'T CHANGE THE WAY CARRIERS AND MOMS WORK ATM!
PS: plz fire "Zulupark" or let him play EVE at least for 1 year before let him make any stupid proposals again. Better idea, if you want to ruin your competitor, send him to Blizzard.
T R U S T shop: http://www.evetrust.com // Haendlergilde [HAE]
|
|
Haakelen
Gallente United Forces Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 18:20:00 -
[1571]
Edited by: Haakelen on 22/10/2007 18:20:08
Originally by: CCP Eris Discordia Verone gets a cookie
Also it would help if people could try to look passed their own bias when they reply with constructive criticism.
My god, you're actually going to do this, aren't you?
|
iqplayer
Caldari Dragon's Rage Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 18:20:00 -
[1572]
Edited by: iqplayer on 22/10/2007 18:25:07
Originally by: Bein Glorious I have really thought about this for a bit, and I actually think it could work better than most people want to admit.
.....
(Edit: posting weirdness/double quote)
The thing is, if you look at it from a purely numbers standpoint, carriers and especially MS are at the top of the range, and thus perhaps needing nerfing.
This doesn't take into account the drawbacks - big slow expensive ships that aren't too hard to kill. Their damage isn't instant. If the target warps out, there's a big chance (let's leave out lag, since that's not supposed to be the reason for this) that even a BS will be able to avoid the fighters. It can hit a range of ships by using medium or light drones, but again, it's pretty limited because of range and speed.
The thing is, people will fly the ship that they can do the most damage with. Groups of pilots will fly/do whatever it takes to win. That's why we have blobs. That's why you see some ships used heavily in pvp, some not at all. Make a ship useful, people use it - often to an excess.
This change doesn't fix those problems - the only thing it might do is switch which ships are used to blob/pwn. And six months later, CCP will have to 'fix' carriers/MS again so that people actually use them once more. Anyone who has played Eve for long has seen these cycles before, and all they do is make players upset for wasting their efforts. What HAS changed is the time it takes to make a ship useful - and the massive investment of time and isk will make this one of the most frustrating nerfs yet.
|
faltzswher
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 18:20:00 -
[1573]
Edited by: faltzswher on 22/10/2007 18:20:49 Nerf CCP they have to much power make the game balanced for all.....
If motherships are the issue make them only allowsd in 0.0 yay probelm solved lets go have some cake.
|
Nadia Commeneo
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 18:21:00 -
[1574]
Edited by: Nadia Commeneo on 22/10/2007 18:23:13 Crap. I just spent 10 minutes reply and then it got deleted. Crap! Let me make this short and sweet this time. This is a BAD F***ING IDEA!
|
Sertan Deras
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 18:23:00 -
[1575]
Originally by: jokerb So now we expect a yes or no. Not the mushroom treatment. Mushroom treatment was reserved for SOE's playerbase. I came from there to here because at the time you didn't treat us like we did not matter, obviously times have changed.
Are you going to go through with it YES or NO. No need for us all to bicker amongst ourselves any longer, give us an answer.
YES or NO?
This. I need to know whether I should continue down the Carrier path or abandon it. We are talking about six or so months worth of training, so it would be really nice to know if this misguided idea is going to be implemented.
With how CCP is ignoring our concerns with their economist trying to apply real world economics to an economy where money appears out of thin air, I am going with yes for now.
|
Kronn Blackthorne
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 18:23:00 -
[1576]
Edited by: Kronn Blackthorne on 22/10/2007 18:25:16 could u fix the fighters , so when i ll rat in my uber mothership , i ll be able to kill an officer plz
damn u CCP u announce this **** the 20 th october and i paid for this month till 16 th november .... could have saved one month bill
The Frenchy |
Maliber
Art of War Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 18:25:00 -
[1577]
Quote:
a) CCP feels that carriers are too effective in fleet combat; not necessarily just on their own, but in huge 20-40+ carrier blobs. As this blog and other statements before it have indicated, this just isn't how CCP wanted these ships to be used. b) In order to discourage huge, crazy numbers of carriers in fleets, something has to get nerfed somehow.
With that in mind, the change as described in the dev blog means that a carrier can't maximize its DPS potential unless it has at least one but optimally three ships with it to control fighters. Give five fighters to one to three gangmates - that's it.
So let's say we're in a hypothetical situation with this change in place where you have the defenders with 20 carriers (a conservative example) and a 40 man support fleet of BS, HACs, inties, and so forth. Let's say that this is a cynojammed system without a jump bridge, so nobody from either side can bring any more capitals inside of it. The attackers have a 70 man fleet of BS, HACs, inties, and so forth, and they jump into system. The defending carriers have all delegated their fighters to their support fleet that has assembled around the gate, waiting for the attackers to jump in. The attackers engage and the fight ensues, and as the attackers destroy ships controlling fighters, the delegated fighters return to their respective carriers and the effective DPS from them goes down.
Now to prevent this, the carriers can come onto the same field as their support fleet instead of sitting outside of a POS and remotely repair their support, keeping them alive and making sure that their fighters continue to do their DPS. In this way, carriers are both brought to the front lines and need their support, and it makes the remote assistance abilities more important. There's no denying that it could work in that sense.
This would all make sense if the environment you are fighting in is without lag. It wouldnt make much of a difference if you had a few more or less cariers and bs's would be equaly good in terms of dps. But now the system you fight in has a bit of a lag issue. You have to do more clicking and flying around with your fighters etc to even let them be used. Thats a huge practicle downside. And i think one of the main reasons ppl are protesting. It makes things a lot harder for you. You dont only have to worry about your own ship being lagged out but also in a larger fleet try to keep tabs on your support... Are they ingame and not dropped? Are they in the fight? etc. It makes carriers a lot more hassle to drive and well pretty useless in a fleetfight or siege. I can understand the fuss everyone is making about it.
|
Lorrisa
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 18:30:00 -
[1578]
So apparently there is a turf war at CCP and the only thing the new def could find to 'tweak' that wasn't already claimed was something that needed little or no tweaking at all. Hence why no one else was working on the issue.
Please focus your puppydog-like enthusiasm on something that needs real attention. I could not believe your excitement at not only gimping fighter deployment but drones too! <-- your exclamation point, not mine.
For being the new guy trying to make your mark on Eve, you've certainly had a bang-up first day. I salute you sir.
|
Hazor Dris
Universal Exports
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 18:30:00 -
[1579]
There is nothing wrong with carriers as they are now, they get killed without support anyway. The only change I could see needing to happen is allowing MOMs in lowsec, because there they are almost invincible. Please stop messing with things that aren't broken, and fix the things that are...
Big NO vote to this proposition. |
Wodanonline
Pringles Inc. STYX.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 18:30:00 -
[1580]
Quote:
a) CCP feels that carriers are too effective in fleet combat; not necessarily just on their own, but in huge 20-40+ carrier blobs. As this blog and other statements before it have indicated, this just isn't how CCP wanted these ships to be used.
he perfectly quoted that ccp doesnt want them to be solopwnmachine look at the word solo.
wich they aint because solo they are a nice big juicy target.
|
|
Druadan
Gallente Aristotle Enterprises Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 18:31:00 -
[1581]
Edited by: Druadan on 22/10/2007 18:32:05
Originally by: CCP Eris Discordia Verone gets a cookie
Also it would help if people could try to look passed their own bias when they reply with constructive criticism.
Takk
PS for the right bribe I can slap, kick or throw stuff at him because he sits right beside me
How can you ask us for non-bias when you are providing cookies in response to biased posters? Verone himself has admitted his posts on this are biased. You have simply found a quotable notable who doesn't absolutely detest this idea and used it as some sort of vindication, some mitigating factor for your hideous idea.
Everybody is biased, that is part of what humans are; entities with vested interests. That is why we say history is written by the winner, and why historians are trained to look at many sources of evidence when analysing something. It is not for the quoted, the referred to, to be objective; it is for the quoter, for the analyst, to be objective. An objective argument is not an argument. We are showing you our bias, unashamedly, because that is our position. Verone does the same because that is his position. He doesn't want carriers dropping onto his lowsec PVP group, and we carrier pilots don't want our ships nerfed to uselessness in their primary role: fleet battles.
It is beyond me how you can sit in your ivory tower and reward one side of a discussion for their bias while telling the other side to stop being so biased, and not expect us to see that you are simply telling us to shut up because we are vehemently opposed to this idea.
### I nearly finish carriers, and they nerf it. I nearly finish Amarr recons, and they make them useless. Vagabond pilots beware... I have bought Minmatar Cruiser. |
Pallidum Treponema
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 18:33:00 -
[1582]
I choose to protest against these changes by cancelling my accounts. This thread is available if anyone else feels like voicing their opinions in the same way.
Protest against broken carrier changes |
Sertan Deras
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 18:33:00 -
[1583]
In EVE as it stands today, solo carriers = dead carriers. CCP, play your own game before you think of things like this.
Seriously, go on to TQ, load yourself up a carrier and go fly around in 0.0 solo. See how long it takes before a gang with EWar is dropped on top of you and your carrier is dust.
|
Clamn8er
Refuge of the Damned
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 18:34:00 -
[1584]
Originally by: Bein Glorious I have really thought about this for a bit, and I actually think it could work better than most people want to admit.
Lets assume these things:
a) CCP feels that carriers are too effective in fleet combat; not necessarily just on their own, but in huge 20-40+ carrier blobs. As this blog and other statements before it have indicated, this just isn't how CCP wanted these ships to be used. b) In order to discourage huge, crazy numbers of carriers in fleets, something has to get nerfed somehow.
With that in mind, the change as described in the dev blog means that a carrier can't maximize its DPS potential unless it has at least one but optimally three ships with it to control fighters. Give five fighters to one to three gangmates - that's it.
Guys I'm going to keep on saying this til the cows come in.
SMALL CORPS DO NOT NECESSARILY HAVE 3 PEOPLE FOR EVERY CARRIER FOR SUPPORT.
It's bad enough contesting 'the big blob' without closing us out entirely from cap ships but allowing bigger teams to blob you just the same.
Why is it that you assume your playing style is the only one in the game????
We are a small team of highly experienced players, we play very well with each other and we like it like that. Why should we be forced to give up our cap ships?
[PS I hope you don't find my criticism that of a "loonie with anger management issues" lol] http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/9961/omertasp2.jpg Sig removed. Lacks EvE related content. -Conuion Meow ([email protected])
|
Perpello
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 18:35:00 -
[1585]
Originally by: Bein Glorious You could still have the problem of carrier/MS spider tanks being amazingly difficult to break, but I wonder if practical application of some Void Bombs (the energy neutralizer bombs) from stealth bombers could deal with that.
Electronic warfare breaks spider tanks or at least can interrupt it long enough to make a difference. Void bombs might help but the effect is insignificant compared to the effect of electronic warfare.
If triage mode were made usable in combat, well, we'd see less fighters.
To make triage usable, carriers and motherships would still need to be able to receive remote support while in triage mode. It would be fair to make carriers vulnerable to electronic warfare while in triage mode and possibly motherships as well. This would give a chance for the spider tank to be interrupted long enough. Attack frigates would help with this.
Allowing remote support would help to also address inability of capacitor recharge rates to keep up with demand, as energy could be exchanged. Capacitor recharge times could still need to be reduced as well while in triage mode, at least by half perhaps more.
And the range of capital remote repair modules needs increased. This could be either done by increasing the standard range of the modules by double or/and by increasing the range while in triage mode.
|
Malachon Draco
eXceed Inc. INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 18:36:00 -
[1586]
Originally by: Cadela Fria
Originally by: Malachon Draco
Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't know 2003 players had to fight battles with enemy titans who could wipe out entire grids, or face 30+ carriers and 10+ moms while they were establishing their little space empires...
2003 people competed with each other too, but if what you're asking is for current new players to experience the same playing field 2003 players were, then that's just rediculous (sp?). You'd have to remove all ships except T1 battleships, cruisers and frigates and only have Tier 1 battleships and so on.
Just because they competed with different ships, doesn't mean it wasn't just as hard..think of how difficult it was to risk and replace ships back then due to lack of things like mining barges, mining foreman bonuses and all that fancy crap.
I am not saying they need a level playing field. But they do need to be somewhat useful, and by the time you get to the point where there is an enemy fleet with 50 carriers/moms, that point is passed.
Like I said before, I don't think CCP can afford not to address the situation. There are more than 1 way to deal with the situation though. Instead of nerfing carriers/moms, they could also introduce other things that even the odds a bit without ruining the functionality of the carrier.
If nerfing the functionality of the fighter is such a huge problem for so many, the alternatives are plenty:
- A T2 BS with extra bonuses on damage, but penalties on hitting smaller stuff. I.e. a capital killer BS. - Warpscramblers capable of holding down a MS (particularly useful in lowsec). - Introduce bigger smartbombs to eliminate abusively large fighterswarms - Introduce a BS module that can create a localized cynojamming effect (gridwide) so people can't jump in MS at will on enemies.
Plenty of other options besides directly nerfing carriers/MS. But something needs to be done or otherwise we will end up with 100 carriers vs 100 carriers in a few months time.
------------------------------------------------
|
Alekseyev Karrde
The Royal Guard Giant Space Amoeba
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 18:36:00 -
[1587]
I am not unsympathetic to your objectives CCP; lag is aweful and cap ship saturation isnt making the game any funner.
But I really, really think you need to take a different approach. The offensive power of the carriers isnt the problem.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -Alekseyev Ambassador, Fleet Commander, Council Member =The Royal Guard= "=TRG=Public" Channel www.rgrocks.com
|
Krall Amarr
Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 18:36:00 -
[1588]
Edited by: Krall Amarr on 22/10/2007 18:45:23 Edited by: Krall Amarr on 22/10/2007 18:42:46 sorry and make all capital whit more 8 highslot for normal weapon?
than u can use your capital directly on fight like a "big bs" plus 5 fighter+ example 8 1400/425 rail or other config (and for use more fighter need to assign to other ship)
or on pos remotely assign 10-15 fighters, whithout risk.
nerf only carrier and ms (average cost of a ms is 50bl serious fitting+ship) is useless , and cause much problem to all people who have focused his skilling on this ship.
a ship of 2bl of cost (average carrier) or ms need to have possibility to defend vs smaller target.
And sorry if is not for lag, but for balance, is pure idiocy, becouse honestly ms except ew is not much more powerful than carrier but cost 30x times more. (in term of dps), and carrier is faar away to be overpowered, 2 recon whit dampener and 2 bs can defeat a carrier if give to them time..
if is for lag, k reduce the number of fighters but give normal high slot for capital personal defence. (honestly is a bit strange a capital ship cant defend vs small ship, look realty. a battleship have a loth of gun, small and large, for his personal defence vs big and smaller target, how is possible in a futuristic game whit spaceship, capital are not capable to defend vs small ship? what tecnology we fly on eve? medioeval? or futuristic?
|
Ms SkyFlyer
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 18:38:00 -
[1589]
CCP go nerf som small stuff. We have trained for theese ships forever.
15months skilling > /dev/null
Im not gonna stand here and watch that you destroy that much skilling. period!
Lots of veteran players have really hard time finding an excuse to keep going. Why not just say that you try defeating lag be redusing player numbers.
|
Atrisha
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 18:38:00 -
[1590]
Edited by: Atrisha on 22/10/2007 18:38:10 My apologies to anyone who's had their sig nerfed due to my n00bishness in assuming that Photoshop divides bytes by 1000 when quoting "KB". In fact, both Photoshop and Windows use a divider of 1024 when expressing "KB" (dividing by 1024 actually nets you "KiB"), so the old image ended up being 102 bytes too large for EVE Online forum rules. The updated, 22126 byte version is now up at:
http://go-dl1.eve-files.com/media/0710/Anti-Carrier-Nerf-Sig[2].jpg
|
|
RR Spore
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 18:38:00 -
[1591]
Nice to hear they are truly trying to ruin EVE, if this goes through it will be time to find a different game. Nice to know they think a 1b ship should be as effective as a BS.
GJ CCP, try playing the game and you might find where the actual problems are...
|
Jaabaa Prime
Dental Drilling Corporation
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 18:39:00 -
[1592]
Originally by: Kwint Sommer
Originally by: Hermaphrodiety
Thanks to Tieger for this brilliant sig.
I'm stealing this sig, I know it's bad form but it's for a good cause. If it's really an issue drop me an eve-mail.
Me too, excellent sig. --
|
Moraguth
Amarr Shiva Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 18:41:00 -
[1593]
So... CCP wants to prevent carriers from being iwinbuttons and solopwnmobiles. Well... I have yet to see that happen (except from moms in lowsec, but even that isn't completely true). So, that whole premise for this change is blown out of the water.
2nd theory for this change is to make carriers more of a support ship that works in gangs more. Well, tbh, carriers can't do that job very effectively in large scale, long term engagements from the front lines (and i'm pretty sure you want them on the front lines from all the previous changes/dev blogs/posts about their use from SS and POS). If you want them to be in a more supportive role, give them the ability to be supportive. You can do this by changing bonuses slightly (and make the triage module more useful at the same time). All it would take is an even bigger boost in scan resolution while in triage, or just give a temporary immunity to EW (my fav solution) and a HUGE, Gigantic, huge-e-mungous bonus to cap recharge rate.
As it stands right now, nobody i know will use a carrier solo anyway. And when we do use them, it's in a small group of carriers helping eachother because they can't stand alone in any sort of real engagement. But honestly, carriers can't sustain themselves, and the armor/shields of allied ships for very long right now.
I hate it how you can't use fighters at all while using the triage module, but I guess it's a needed downside. If you're considering changing that to make it more used, allow the delegated fighters to be reduced by 5, and have the carrier not able to control any by itself. This will still allow it to have a small bit of punch while giving it the awesome staying power and supportive power of the triage module.
Alliance and Corp rules (as far as I know) are to never use your cap ships solo, else you get in ALOT of trouble if one goes down. So we're always in gangs anyway.
The way to make carriers more a support ship than a damage dealer (even though they really aren't that uber like you seem to think they are) is to tweak the bonuses (boni?) they get from the triage module.
good game |
Krall Amarr
Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 18:46:00 -
[1594]
http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/5279/anticarriernerfsig2mw1.jpg
who wanna use signature i up here
|
Pallidum Treponema
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 19:04:00 -
[1595]
Originally by: Sertan Deras
I've never canceled one of my EVE accounts, but do they give you a feedback box to enter why? Because if they do, everyone needs to note they are canceling because of the Carrier/Mothership change.
Yes, they do. They give you a dropdown list where you can select the reason for why you are cancelling (IE, customer support, changes in the latest patch, getting griefed etc), plus a textbox where you can write down a comment to why you're cancelling.
Protest against carrier changes |
Robet Katrix
Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 19:08:00 -
[1596]
we are at 40% of the amount of posts from the
T20 INCIDENT
do you really want that kind of response? cause YOUR ****NIG GETTING TO THAT POINT
|
Mister Xerox
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 19:08:00 -
[1597]
Hoooooooly shyt, batbutt! What a complete explosion of hate and fire...
I agree that carriers are being used as nothing more than logistics boats and uuber big-boat-bashers (re: battleblimp busters), but this change to drones won't help. Link 3 groups to 3 inties and the battleblimp is still just as dead.
I don't care, really, it's all the same. I'd just like to see carriers kicked out of lowsec, or at least have their capability massively curtailed along with all of the other caps & moms & titans.
The solution to this problem: Sentries interdict (jumpdrive scram) at 200km. This will make capitals killable, but won't reduce their offensive capability in the least, in lowsec. No sentries = no interdiction. In lowsec carriers can still deploy their fighters from someplace in system, and dreads (or whatever) can still happily snipe from 201km, but if any of them get within 200km they can't jump out and any tackler worthy of their name can come lock it down for a BS vengeance fleet to come calling.
|
Turin
Caldari Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 19:09:00 -
[1598]
Originally by: Max Teranous Let's face it. A mothership should not have less dps than a rorqual when using drones. The concept is insane.
And pimping the sig
STFU before the nerf the Rorq!
_________________________________
|
Mifter Hogdido
Amarr The 0ri Origin Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 19:09:00 -
[1599]
I still feel that they should fire the man who suggested the idea. All in favor?
And thanks for the new sig as well. -----------------
|
James Duar
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 19:10:00 -
[1600]
Ok, you can't kick carriers and supercapitals out of low-sec because there are many instances where in order to circumnavigate the map a capital of that size must pass through low sec because it does not have the jump drive range of carriers.
|
|
JoeCool LordOfTheDark
Burnout Syndrome SECUWAY.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 19:10:00 -
[1601]
If CCP is nerving the Capitals, then i have pend up to 100 Days Skilltime for nothing. Before CCP nerves any Ships in EvE, CCP should pimp up the Amarr Ships.
I'am playing EvE since 2 Years. In the beginnig of my playtime i have choosed the Amarr Race. After i have realized that Amarr sucks, i have changed my Skillway to Caldari. Even i was ready to use Missiles, EvE nerved the Missiles. No i'am skilling to Amarr Carrier. And now i must read this.
This isnt realy funny.
if become this nerve thruth, then i'am not sure to play EvE in the future.
Regards,
JoeCool _________________________________________ JoeCool LordofTheDark Director and Diplo of SecuWay. alliance Member of SecuWay |
Niraco79
Gallente Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 19:12:00 -
[1602]
this nerf is bad....u should realize when red alliance pilots and bob pilots are saying the same...instead u should sart brainstorming to change systems of objectives for players so we have motives to make the fleets smaller ________________ THE MEGA NOOB
|
Kronn Blackthorne
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 19:12:00 -
[1603]
enjoy mission lvl 5 with 5 fighters .. lol
The Frenchy |
Ridjeck Thome
The Older Gamers R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 19:13:00 -
[1604]
I'd like to point CCP in the direction of a Mr Smedley from SOE.
He admitted that they made a mistake with SWG, lost touch with what the players wanted and made assumptions that proved to be less than accurate. Result = the game died.
Dont start down this road CCP - you are better than that.
|
Sertan Deras
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 19:14:00 -
[1605]
Originally by: JoeCool LordOfTheDark If CCP is nerving the Capitals, then i have pend up to 100 Days Skilltime for nothing. Before CCP nerves any Ships in EvE, CCP should pimp up the Amarr Ships.
I'am playing EvE since 2 Years. In the beginnig of my playtime i have choosed the Amarr Race. After i have realized that Amarr sucks, i have changed my Skillway to Caldari. Even i was ready to use Missiles, EvE nerved the Missiles. No i'am skilling to Amarr Carrier. And now i must read this.
This isnt realy funny.
if become this nerve thruth, then i'am not sure to play EvE in the future.
Regards,
JoeCool
It's NERF my friend, NERF. Nerves are the little signal processors in your body that cause you to feel things. Nerfing something is taking it and making it "like a nerf football", aka soft and squishy ;)
|
Cadela Fria
Amarr Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 19:15:00 -
[1606]
Originally by: Sertan Deras
Originally by: JoeCool LordOfTheDark If CCP is nerving the Capitals, then i have pend up to 100 Days Skilltime for nothing. Before CCP nerves any Ships in EvE, CCP should pimp up the Amarr Ships.
I'am playing EvE since 2 Years. In the beginnig of my playtime i have choosed the Amarr Race. After i have realized that Amarr sucks, i have changed my Skillway to Caldari. Even i was ready to use Missiles, EvE nerved the Missiles. No i'am skilling to Amarr Carrier. And now i must read this.
This isnt realy funny.
if become this nerve thruth, then i'am not sure to play EvE in the future.
Regards,
JoeCool
It's NERF my friend, NERF. Nerves are the little signal processors in your body that cause you to feel things. Nerfing something is taking it and making it "like a nerf football", aka soft and squishy ;)
Be as that may, it seems to me likes nerves and nerfs are closely related in this particular case.
|
Haakelen
Gallente United Forces Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 19:15:00 -
[1607]
Originally by: Ridjeck Thome I'd like to point CCP in the direction of a Mr Smedley from SOE.
He admitted that they made a mistake with SWG, lost touch with what the players wanted and made assumptions that proved to be less than accurate. Result = the game died.
Dont start down this road CCP - you are better than that.
Read what this man says.
|
Tx Shadow
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 19:16:00 -
[1608]
No, no, and no to the nerfing idea. Somebody fire that guy who suggested it.
|
Kariss
Gallente hirr Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 19:17:00 -
[1609]
Since the oroginal blog, I've had time to calm down and try and see the change rationally.
But no, I do not want to be nothing more than a 30b+ logistics ship. I have flown logistics ships and it's not my style. I want to be in the fight/battle killing stuff - I AM FLYING A BLOODY DRONE SHIP NOT A FRICKING GIANT ONEIROS!
I seriously hope that if this goes through, your subscriber base drops like a lead weight. It'll certainly alleviate some lag at least. _
|
Sertan Deras
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 19:18:00 -
[1610]
Originally by: Cadela Fria
Originally by: Sertan Deras
Originally by: JoeCool LordOfTheDark If CCP is nerving the Capitals, then i have pend up to 100 Days Skilltime for nothing. Before CCP nerves any Ships in EvE, CCP should pimp up the Amarr Ships.
I'am playing EvE since 2 Years. In the beginnig of my playtime i have choosed the Amarr Race. After i have realized that Amarr sucks, i have changed my Skillway to Caldari. Even i was ready to use Missiles, EvE nerved the Missiles. No i'am skilling to Amarr Carrier. And now i must read this.
This isnt realy funny.
if become this nerve thruth, then i'am not sure to play EvE in the future.
Regards,
JoeCool
It's NERF my friend, NERF. Nerves are the little signal processors in your body that cause you to feel things. Nerfing something is taking it and making it "like a nerf football", aka soft and squishy ;)
Be as that may, it seems to me likes nerves and nerfs are closely related in this particular case.
Oh, they are.
|
|
BillyBong2
Amarr Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 19:21:00 -
[1611]
Originally by: Ridjeck Thome I'd like to point CCP in the direction of a Mr Smedley from SOE.
He admitted that they made a mistake with SWG, lost touch with what the players wanted and made assumptions that proved to be less than accurate. Result = the game died.
Dont start down this road CCP - you are better than that.
^^ This!
pay attention!
|
Vandalias
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 19:23:00 -
[1612]
Edited by: Vandalias on 22/10/2007 19:24:52
Originally by: Kariss I seriously hope that if this goes through, your subscriber base drops like a lead weight. It'll certainly alleviate some lag at least.
I'd guess that even if every carrier pilot in game were to quit next week the numbers on tranq wouldn't drop that much. Everytime theres a big change the forums are full of people screaming about canceling accounts, yet the playerbase keeps growing and CCP survives.
|
Psi Xotox
Amarr Starbase Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 19:25:00 -
[1613]
Why are you pushing EVE in the direction of SWG, nobody wants to play a game where every ship is equal no matter of the costs / skills.
And plz search for someone else for balancing, Zulupark seems to be a total noob. If you want to balance the fame, fix the lag and dont change things which work good like they are
|
Red Gabba
M. Corp M. PIRE
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 19:25:00 -
[1614]
Funny, i don't fly carriers and don't have any intention of doing so, but im tired of all the adjustments ccp make.
CCP you have a problem, if you need to make adjustments to your game so often then i really do not see how you can charge people to play it. why am i paying for a broken game? (broken because you keep saying it needs fixing)
I don't like balancing, why? because it takes the scope out of the game, do you think the Gallante federation Nerf there ships because it might be to powerful. No they make it more powerful, then someone has to counter them. right now all class of ships are starting to look the same and the game is becoming boring. and it seems your going to make it even more boring.
CCP please get a grip.
|
Akov Stohs
THE INQUISITI0N
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 19:26:00 -
[1615]
Theres been some significant ideas posted lately. But they lack combining. So instead of nerfing Carriers and Moms, lets change the Triage module.
-increase Cap Recharge while in triage -increase range of remote reps (maybe via a new skill?) while in triage -decrease locktime while in triage -Allow Fighters to be assigned while in triage, but they can't attack -increase fighter damage while in triage, -remove local rep bonuses from triage -ew immunity stays
Gives you the ability to jump in, enter triage with fellow carriers, launch fighters and assign them, and then use the remote reps to keep everyone alive. Keeps carriers as they are now, but gives them a powerful new option that is a pure support role. Gives reason to enter triage, as the fighters can get a bonus to damage, but must be assigned to do any damage.
None of these are my ideas, just a group of other peoples combined *nod*
|
Mark Foley
Roid Vandals Interstellar Starbase Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 19:29:00 -
[1616]
Harsh, as a dreadnought pilot I couldn't care less tbh, but still harsh.
Seems to me that bar the use of fighters, carriers are no better than dominix's
-Mark Foley-
|
Vandalias
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 19:30:00 -
[1617]
Originally by: Akov Stohs Theres been some significant ideas posted lately. But they lack combining. So instead of nerfing Carriers and Moms, lets change the Triage module.
-increase Cap Recharge while in triage -increase range of remote reps (maybe via a new skill?) while in triage -decrease locktime while in triage -Allow Fighters to be assigned while in triage, but they can't attack -increase fighter damage while in triage, -remove local rep bonuses from triage -ew immunity stays
Gives you the ability to jump in, enter triage with fellow carriers, launch fighters and assign them, and then use the remote reps to keep everyone alive. Keeps carriers as they are now, but gives them a powerful new option that is a pure support role. Gives reason to enter triage, as the fighters can get a bonus to damage, but must be assigned to do any damage.
None of these are my ideas, just a group of other peoples combined *nod*
Triage defintely need some work, but none of those changes really solve what CCP views as the problem, i.e. the use of carriers as direct damage dealers and not support ships. Granted, carriers should be made better support ships if they make this change, but just buffing triage without any other changes does absolutely nothing towards solving CCPs problem with how they are being used.
|
Cergorach
Amarr The Helix Foundation
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 19:31:00 -
[1618]
Hmm... Interesting...
Might i suggest to go one step further, and don't allow fighters be controlled by the Carrier pilot, only by supporting craft. Don't cap the number of drones and make them relatively short ranged for the carrier (for the carriers defense). Have some 'anti' weapons available for the carrier, up defenses a bit. Mayby have a few (1-3) strong long ranged weapons that have slow recycle times or only a few shots.
While it sounds really cool to play around with 20 fighters, i'm thinking of a more classical role of the carrier (20th century). Also try to limit the control range of the fighters vs. the controlling craft an vs. the carrier, so that you'll get a more squadron type feel.
|
Psi Xotox
Amarr Starbase Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 19:31:00 -
[1619]
Originally by: Vandalias Edited by: Vandalias on 22/10/2007 19:24:52
Originally by: Kariss I seriously hope that if this goes through, your subscriber base drops like a lead weight. It'll certainly alleviate some lag at least.
I'd guess that even if every carrier pilot in game were to quit next week the numbers on tranq wouldn't drop that much. Everytime theres a big change the forums are full of people screaming about canceling accounts, yet the playerbase keeps growing and CCP survives.
SWG showed the contrary. If they change the wrong things, they could loose everything. And i hope they are aware of this.
Who knows if the Carrier / mom changes are the wrong things , but in any case they would remove the capital ships from the normal warfare. Which means instead of dropping a few carriers on an enemy (btw. with a high risk too loose much more than you could kill) you have to form up a gang and while forming up the enemy gets stronger, so you grab some more guys together and you end in a blob lag.
|
mogwai
Gallente Gremlin Industries Edge Of Sanity
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 19:33:00 -
[1620]
so lemme get this right....
CCP wants to reduce blob warfare..
CCP then decides to possibly turn the carrier into a THREE man crew instead?
so... for every ONE ship delpoyed, you now need THREE to make it effective?
gratz guys.... if this goes ahead, i just wasted 6 months of skills
|
|
UPS Truck
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 19:34:00 -
[1621]
Originally by: Psi Xotox
Who knows if the Carrier / mom changes are the wrong things
I do. They are.
|
Gane Green
Gallente Dominus Imperium
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 19:34:00 -
[1622]
Edited by: Gane Green on 22/10/2007 19:34:37 This makes as much sense as removing the siege mode from dreads. Verry funny joke right? This is a joke? Because I hear no one laughing.
You said its not because of lagg. Then what is it about making it to where it takes more people to do the same thing.
Whats next removing siege mode and giving remote siege mod to three gangmates to enter a siege mode?
You need to really think stuff over before a lot of people leave your game for good.
If god was a number he would be over 9,000!!!!!!!!! |
ER0X
Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 19:34:00 -
[1623]
Originally by: Matthew
Originally by: ER0X Sorry Mathew I know you mean well but honestly *WinKs* I would pay good money to be a fly on the wall when you bring out your Moros/Revelation enter siege and deathbring the pain to a half dozen BS orbiting you at ohhh 5-10m/s lolRazz. Even funnier would be 3-6 macharial class faction BS.
Which is the weakness of the dread that it requires the support fleet to cover. I do believe I mentioned that.
Every size of weapon system is less effective on targets smaller than it's designed for. Why should capital ships be any different? Capital "deathbringers" are supposed to bring death to capitals. Half a dozen cruisers set up for the job is going to make mincemeat of a lone battleship, why should it be a problem that half a dozen battleships do the same to a dread? Admittedly dreads are less flexible about fitting for smaller targets than the other ship classes, but then it is a more specialized class to begin with.
The sort of capital "deathbringer" you seem to be envisaging sounds like a pwnmobile that hoses down swathes of anything sub-capital. While cool for the person flying it, that's an extremely bad idea for everyone else, as it would do the one thing that eve has always tried to avoid - obsoleting the lower ship classes.
Oh, and to address the "disproportionate" cost and training of capitals justifying a massive power step - remember to factor in the one asset people always forget. Player numbers. Each pilot is an asset in itself. The ability to concentrate firepower and other abilities into a single player is in itself a benefit over and above the raw increase. That is why the cost and skill progression will always be non-linear.
Your assessment of what I was saying is absolutely correct. Therefore the likelihood of you using the dread in that situation is minimal unless you are a masochist.
So we take the argument you supply and move on to the damage out put of the Carrier and the MS. Both these behemoths struggle with anything smaller than a BS at the moment. I believe we can both concede this point.
A Solo Carrier can kill a few BS before it dies in battle with its damage out put as is. I think this in terms of balance is a fair trade. A MS on the other hand stands a far better chance of survival against the same number of BS because of a) its damage out put and b) its natural resistance to EW. But it is in no way immune to being killed as we have seen in resent weeks with the number of them being killed even in low sec.
There is also the difference in MS which is that if you get in it you donÆt leave it till it is blown up or you sell it. It cant dock. You donÆt train to get in a MS, and when you do, then change your mind and switch to a BS or smaller for ****s and giggles one day.
The argument of skill training or ISK cost which you mention is one which holds no sway for me personally. I wonÆt fly a ship I canÆt afford to loose. If I train for it, it was my choice to train for it therefore has no bearing on the argument whatsoever nor would I use this as a basis for argument. My argument is with the proposed changes.
To recap what we have here is two capital class ships one ordinary capital ship the other a super capital ship. Both will have the same solo damage out put as the other. There is no consistency here from the established ship hierarchy. There is a clear distinction between a Moa for example and its variant the Eagle. Where as here with this class of ships the proposal will mean there is no real distinction at the base level.
The argument is that these ships become more powerful when inserted in a gang formation. Any number of ships added together in a gang becomes a far more potent combination than one ship alone. The problem is compounded for this class of ships by their inability to protect themselves if left alone less likely with carriers. However in the case of the MS if you cannot see why this would be an extremely pressing issue while flying a ship which cannot dock and must remain in space at all times then the subtlety is lost on you. Only the capital ships will have this defensive problem none of the others do with the exception of cargo vessels.
|
Juggernaut Kell
Caldari 0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 19:34:00 -
[1624]
Thank you for warning me ahead of time that you are tryin to ruin eve officially, at least now I can refrain from buying a carrier and just wait for Starcraft II to come out since Eve pretty much is being ran by anaerobic algae now.
|
Bein Glorious
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 19:37:00 -
[1625]
Originally by: Perpello Electronic warfare breaks spider tanks or at least can interrupt it long enough to make a difference. Void bombs might help but the effect is insignificant compared to the effect of electronic warfare.
If triage mode were made usable in combat, well, we'd see less fighters.
To make triage usable, carriers and motherships would still need to be able to receive remote support while in triage mode. It would be fair to make carriers vulnerable to electronic warfare while in triage mode and possibly motherships as well. This would give a chance for the spider tank to be interrupted long enough. Attack frigates would help with this.
Allowing remote support would help to also address inability of capacitor recharge rates to keep up with demand, as energy could be exchanged. Capacitor recharge times could still need to be reduced as well while in triage mode, at least by half perhaps more.
And the range of capital remote repair modules needs increased. This could be either done by increasing the standard range of the modules by double or/and by increasing the range while in triage mode.
Allowing people in triage mode to affect other ships in triage mode would be seriously the most broken thing possible. In triage, logistics modules have 4x the effect but use 2x the cap. What that means is that if you were to link two carriers in triage together with a Capital Energy Transfer Array, you could run a capital shield transporter or remote rep FOREVER. No, it's not doing any damage, but you could make any ship be completely unkillable, or there are other applications, such as repping up a POS out of reinforced mode in only mere minutes. The potential ramifications of daisy-chaining carriers together like that would completely break the game, and ewar immunity would only make that worse. Improving triage mode in that way is completely out of the question.
Similarly, capital logistics modules should NOT have their range increased, since that would make the spider tank problem much worse. Right now, if you've got twenty carriers remote repping each other with the right setups, the only way you're going to break that is by either a) bumping individual carriers apart from the group (which has a tendency to cause desyncs), b) Void bombs (which have limited viability), and c) electronic warfare (which will do NOTHING to any motherships in the group, and damps are very likely to get nerfed soon anyway).
It is, however, true that making the game less laggy, be that by code optimization and/or fighter changes, could mitigate a lot of capital ship related problems. Probably not all of them, but it would be a good start. |
Ben Brownson
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 19:40:00 -
[1626]
I also have a balancing advice for CCP:
remoce "Zulupark" instantly from the Game Design team remove "Zulupark" all rights to post stupid Dev blogs send "Zulupark" to the kitchen and let him make cafe while you search for a new Game Designer.
I would bet this would work much smoother than anything "Zulupark" could do to your memberbase. Btw. the more you pay people, the better you get, so it seems you have to at least triple the income of your game designers.
|
Commandant Damocles
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 19:40:00 -
[1627]
Well the customers are always right, right? DON"T CHANGE THE CARRIERS........ i can't stress this enough people work their butts off getting these death machines and now your going to try to take the rug right out from under them. their great assets for doing solo work and keeping track of significantly weaker corpmates in a system. your trying to ruin something great in eve, you folks have already ruined plenty. Can't yall just quit breaking fixed things? |
Miz Cenuij
Caldari Simply Smacktackular
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 19:45:00 -
[1628]
64 pages of hate LOL.
Nice first day for you Zulu.
Dont take out a mortgage based on your new job, The response has been enthused with such hate that CCP may take one of thier corporate decisions and fire the person who put the idea out there to apeaze the masses!
Sacrifical lamb to the slaughter?
GJ sunshine.
"Men are going to die... and I'm going to kill them" |
VInanath Diesel
Caldari Bounty Hunter - Dark Legion Brutally Clever Empire
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 19:46:00 -
[1629]
Zulupark, That's quite a nerf bat you got there. lol
|
Asian Doll
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 19:47:00 -
[1630]
I have been pointing alot of corp/alliance mates at this thread and the overall response from an entire alliance can be discribed in one word BullS@#t. Years of training time, tons of isk, many man hours of sitting in front of a pc to even get thess ships built and now someone has a brain fart and the whole community is getting penalized? Everyone aspires to get bigger and better ships but of all those people only a few will actually get it now no one will want a glorified jumping domi. You really need to sit down and rethink these changes cause you are just ****ing the game.
|
|
Rusty PwnStar
Rampage Eternal Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 19:49:00 -
[1631]
Edited by: Rusty PwnStar on 22/10/2007 19:49:21 I'll make this point again, just incase it was lost.
What do you do, if you pilot a MS and you need to login and change a skill? This change will make it a very risky situation.
Regards Rusty
|
Bi Tor
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 19:49:00 -
[1632]
Originally by: Akov Stohs Theres been some significant ideas posted lately. But they lack combining. So instead of nerfing Carriers and Moms, lets change the Triage module.
-increase Cap Recharge while in triage -increase range of remote reps (maybe via a new skill?) while in triage -decrease locktime while in triage -Allow Fighters to be assigned while in triage, but they can't attack -increase fighter damage while in triage, -remove local rep bonuses from triage -ew immunity stays
Gives you the ability to jump in, enter triage with fellow carriers, launch fighters and assign them, and then use the remote reps to keep everyone alive. Keeps carriers as they are now, but gives them a powerful new option that is a pure support role. Gives reason to enter triage, as the fighters can get a bonus to damage, but must be assigned to do any damage.
None of these are my ideas, just a group of other peoples combined *nod*
Add this one; Give carriers the same Warfare link bonuses as the MOM.
That way your choices are; 1. Full fighters for DPS 2. Triage for support 3. Command link for leadership
Carriers are vulnerable enough, it does not need to get worse. I had to go save two carriers the other day. When we arrived the carriers were about to go down, had no fighters or drones left and had yet to score a kill upon the ships that were attacking them.
SOLO Carrier = a slow but VERY painful death Proposed change + (SOLO|grouped Carrier) = fast and painless death
Guaranteed, if this goes through I have p**sed away a year of training. For that I will quit this game. Yes I WILL encourage my corpmates and friends to leave also. I believe WAR: Warhammer Age of Reckoning will be released at or about the same time as this CLUSTER F***.
I vote: NO!
The originally proposed idea will kill the carrier faster than any other idea I have ever seen.
Bite Me! |
Galactic reporter
Galactic reporter independant news corp
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 19:51:00 -
[1633]
WHat CCP should do is instead of nerfing them to oblivion:
Make carriers/motherships unable to control FIGHTERS in low sec.
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/welovefighters/ |
Talthrus
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 19:52:00 -
[1634]
This "idea" would have been something to consider before releasing carriers. Here we are, what, a year plus after capital ships have been released? People have thrown in month after month of long training times (Carrier 5 / Fighter 5 anyone?) in addition to enormous sums of ISK into their capital ships.
As I said earlier, this is the kind of thing that needs to be introduced before or right after the ships are released. You simply can't expect players to stomach their ships being gutted like this after so much time has passed. I definitely know I'm not alone when I say that I wouldn't have trained carriers to the point I have today (let alone Carrier 5) if this is how they worked.
----------------------
|
Xilimyth Derlin
OldBastardsPub SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 19:53:00 -
[1635]
Originally by: Rusty PwnStar Edited by: Rusty PwnStar on 22/10/2007 19:49:21 I'll make this point again, just incase it was lost.
What do you do, if you pilot a MS and you need to login and change a skill? This change will make it a very risky situation.
I'm still thinking they should allow MS's to dock. Heck, this is the ONE reason once my skillups are done I'm not even going to try to fly one. If you want to do something else for a day, you can't even swap 'ownership' or put it away without ejecting -_-.
|
Rachen Mysuna
Brotherhood of Polar Equation Mordus Angels
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 19:57:00 -
[1636]
Deacon Ix, i hope its ok if i loan your sig
|
Yazoul Samaiel
Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 19:57:00 -
[1637]
It is quite clear that 95% of the community that actualy is involved with cap ship usage is total frustrated and agisnt this idea and direction CCP is taking .
the most important question is what are you ppl gonna do if CCP as usual just goes with " Sorry we will implement what we want " and all this chatter that we have been doign here has fallen on deaf ears? As far as i know when a customer is dissatisfied with the service the company obligation is to work on that not to work on dissatisfing the customer more so again what will the community do ? Continue to play EVE or not ?
|
Neoromi
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 19:57:00 -
[1638]
Originally by: Rachen Mysuna Deacon Ix, i hope its ok if i loan your sig
Most of us already stole it for the greater good.
|
Divideby0
Gallente Cloak and Daggers Knights Of Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 19:57:00 -
[1639]
Ok I skipped a lot of this but i get the gist:
CCP wanted to moderate the power of carriers, asked for an opinion and everyone said "NO"!
So rather than nerf an existing ship, why not create a counter-ship. Make it like a capital scale or a BS/BC variant of a destroyer(not dictor) that specializes in taking out MANY smaller ships.
Who is the bigger carebear: The miner who braves lowsec on his own, or the "PvPer" who attacks an unarmed ship? I support the f |
Stellar Vix
State War Academy
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 20:00:00 -
[1640]
How to make carriers front line again.
Keep your nerf,
Add to your nerf that any ship you give fighters to get some sort of bonus from the fighter for example amarr fighters give 1% cap recharge, caldari give 1% shield recharge ect ect.
Give all the carriers one sort of fighter buff or another make it racial for example, amarr fighters hp boost, minmatar fighters speed boost, caldari fighters, higher accuracy (better for the smaller than battleship stuff), gallente better damage not just to the gallente as it is now.
Give them resistances to EWAR, but not immunity, and boost the effectiveness of boosters on them, so that one sensor booster could take up to 8 dampeners to coutner, and remote sensor boosters would be the same. This however has the potential to backfire in bigger nerfages.
If this wont do then I purpose this All fighters have a long range remote sensor boost to thier controlling ship, in a real carrier its the fighters and recon planes that offer information to the fleets it should be applied here.
Give carriers on grid fleet bonuses similar to titans fleet wide anywhere in system bonuses but only have them on in their presence.
Remove remote delegation of fighters Remove fighter warp drives Introduce more types of Carrier Sized Drones!!! Add Fighters with Ewar or multiple ewars including warp scrambeling and will still do dps but not as good as the of the fighter
Another option is to make fighters *****ble, giving ultimate variety and role function slots would be limited to basically, what ewar you want, what ranged gun you want and what type of support module on the low slot you want.
New weapon for carrier in triage mode a repair field generator, fixes ships in range of the field thier cap shield armor hull and modules and any drones they have docked including carrier itself, amount of repair is based on radius of the ship but it will repair any hostile ships in the field as well. The repairs wouldnt be to terribly high and the range of the field would make it difficult to overlap the fields let alone fit another carrier in it.
Give Triage mode an engineering boost, if the ship is offlining its engine then there should be a metrictonn of new power to pull. Make the engineering good enough so that the carrier can run its own repper the formentioned field and 1 remote at least.
Give carriers a carrier bay which holds piloted ships so when they jump they take the pilots with them. Ships docked up with them will get repaired by a carriers repair bay module this includes thier cap shields armor hull modules and drones, ships docked on the carrier will not be targetable by hostile forces but will be destroyed if the carrier goes down. If a player disconnects while in this mode he'll be undocked and normal emergency warp procedures ensure. you can limit ship sizes by individual bay size stats and then the number of bays so if a bay was 10km3 then you can fit two frigates there or 1 cruiser then 4 bays opt for 8 frigates or 4 cruisers.
Give carriers 1 uber defender, phalanx, that will intercept incomming missiles and attempt deflect incomming rounds and shoot down drones, it wont make them invincible but it will increase their survivbility against smaller ships, dread weapons will still punch though, also the system should require ammo so it would have to be reloaded leaving the carrier vunerable for some time before firing up the system again.
There you have it folks, a more real carrier more fighter encouragement for deligation a more resiliant carrier a more front line carrier a more useful triage mode and something that still isnt uber enough but will be very very useful and a critical staple.
SWA PVP |
|
Salient Soldier
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 20:00:00 -
[1641]
booooo!!! Hisss!!!!
|
Bein Glorious
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 20:01:00 -
[1642]
As a side note, I am really amazed at the amount of e-rage in this thread.
Serious question for all of you, not a troll or a flame or anything, but really just a question: was EVE not fun before carriers became common? Was it really terrible and not worth playing before you had a carrier?
This change doesn't really toss carriers/motherships out, it's just meant to make it so there's less of them. Sure, the idea could use a little modification, and the UI and lag problems still need to be taken care of, but right now it's still just an idea.
In an absolute worst-case, end-of-the-world, "twister's-a-comin!" scenario where carriers were something besides what they are now, something that you wouldn't want to fly exclusively, would the game really just not be worth playing?
I really can't help but think that some people are overdramatizing this. |
Xilimyth Derlin
OldBastardsPub SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 20:02:00 -
[1643]
Edited by: Xilimyth Derlin on 22/10/2007 20:02:59
Originally by: Stellar Vix How to make carriers front line again.
Keep your nerf,
Add to your nerf that any ship you give fighters to get some sort of bonus from the fighter for example amarr fighters give 1% cap recharge, caldari give 1% shield recharge ect ect.
Give all the carriers one sort of fighter buff or another make it racial for example, amarr fighters hp boost, minmatar fighters speed boost, caldari fighters, higher accuracy (better for the smaller than battleship stuff), gallente better damage not just to the gallente as it is now.
Give them resistances to EWAR, but not immunity, and boost the effectiveness of boosters on them, so that one sensor booster could take up to 8 dampeners to coutner, and remote sensor boosters would be the same. This however has the potential to backfire in bigger nerfages.
Fighters being part logistic drones? That kinda makes sense... I mean they are cruiser sized are they not? What harm would it cause if attaching 5 fighters to another ship gave it a 5% armor repair or resistance.... or target painted the target a little?
Surely that won't harm things right CCP? ^^ Make them 100% worth Delegating instead of controlling yourself.
|
General Xenophon
Caldari Infinite Improbability Inc Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 20:03:00 -
[1644]
Edited by: General Xenophon on 22/10/2007 20:03:35
Originally by: CCP Wrangler Making changes to EVE can be an easy or a difficult task, and a change that one person likes might not be palatable to someone else. However, these changes are made with the overall game in mind.
Zulupark makes his introductory Dev Blog from his new position in the Game Design team. Following in the footsteps of TomB and Tuxford, Zulu is now working on balancing different elements of EVE and one of the first projects he gets to work on is the relationship between Supercapitals, Fighters and Drones. Be gentle on him, he's got a tough one!
Fighters, Drones, Supercapitals and control. What's being considered? Check out Capital ships in EVE, what's up doc?.
Absolutely not. Terrible idea. No thanks. For your sake and mine, I won't spend the next few lines writing how terrible this idea is and how it makes me feel about CCP for coming up with it. As to the Dev's post, well, better luck next time with an idea. Don't give up on your first attempt at coming up with an idea. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= "Now, we must all fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men." - Boondock Saints |
Taip
hirr Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 20:03:00 -
[1645]
Originally by: Yazoul Samaiel It is quite clear that 95% of the community that actualy is involved with cap ship usage is total frustrated and agisnt this idea and direction CCP is taking .
the most important question is what are you ppl gonna do if CCP as usual just goes with " Sorry we will implement what we want " and all this chatter that we have been doign here has fallen on deaf ears? As far as i know when a customer is dissatisfied with the service the company obligation is to work on that not to work on dissatisfing the customer more so again what will the community do ? Continue to play EVE or not ?
I fear that the majority opinion will be disregarded anyway and there's nothing we can really do about it. Sure, some people will quit, but enough to impact CCP's income? I seriously doubt it.
I for one, won't quit. I may go on a break and do other things for several months but as before, I'll probably just get over it and return. Until there's another viable alternative to EvE, we have little choice.
hirr today, gone tomorrow |
Mifter Hogdido
Amarr The 0ri Origin Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 20:04:00 -
[1646]
Originally by: Ben Brownson I also have a balancing advice for CCP:
remoce "Zulupark" instantly from the Game Design team remove "Zulupark" all rights to post stupid Dev blogs send "Zulupark" to the kitchen and let him make cafe while you search for a new Game Designer.
I would bet this would work much smoother than anything "Zulupark" could do to your memberbase. Btw. the more you pay people, the better you get, so it seems you have to at least triple the income of your game designers.
Hear hear! I like that balancing idea. -----------------
|
Ztrain
Evolution Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 20:07:00 -
[1647]
Originally by: Vandalias Edited by: Vandalias on 22/10/2007 19:24:52
Originally by: Kariss I seriously hope that if this goes through, your subscriber base drops like a lead weight. It'll certainly alleviate some lag at least.
I'd guess that even if every carrier pilot in game were to quit next week the numbers on tranq wouldn't drop that much. Everytime theres a big change the forums are full of people screaming about canceling accounts, yet the playerbase keeps growing and CCP survives.
Yes because this is the only space MMO currently released. So if your not in to the other styles of games your kinda left with EVE as your only option for probably the next year. But as people get more and more anoyed with CCP you'll start to see an interesting effect. When the other games such as Infinity and Jumpgate Evolution come out people will play them just because their not CCP.
Personally play'd EQ for a number of years and won't have a problem going back and messing around with raid geared characters until the other MMOs are released.
Z CCP (Producers of Slide Show Online) takin the fun out of EVE, one patch at a time. |
Rusty PwnStar
Rampage Eternal Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 20:08:00 -
[1648]
I and I guess many others in this thread, would still like to know the reason this balance was needed in the first place.
You ask for constructive replies, yet fail to give constructive reasons.
Regards Rusty
|
thetwilitehour
Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 20:09:00 -
[1649]
It sounds like the issue is primarily fighter blobs so to speak. Why not simply utilize the new bandwidth attribute. Set it up so every carrier in the gang or grid reduces the bandwidth for every carrier to deploy fighters.
So Carriers would have 5 Fighter bandwidth, MS 5 + per level of carrier, and their bandwidth would be reduced by 1 per carrier/ms on the grid or in the gang. Maybe this wouldn't work (setting up multiple gangs, no way to detect carriers on the grid) but at least it seems like a more productive idea than wanting to kill the messenger.
|
Dionisius
Gallente Critical Analysis Te-Ka
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 20:10:00 -
[1650]
Originally by: Bein Glorious As a side note, I am really amazed at the amount of e-rage in this thread.
Serious question for all of you, not a troll or a flame or anything, but really just a question: was EVE not fun before carriers became common? Was it really terrible and not worth playing before you had a carrier?
This change doesn't really toss carriers/motherships out, it's just meant to make it so there's less of them. Sure, the idea could use a little modification, and the UI and lag problems still need to be taken care of, but right now it's still just an idea.
In an absolute worst-case, end-of-the-world, "twister's-a-comin!" scenario where carriers were something besides what they are now, something that you wouldn't want to fly exclusively, would the game really just not be worth playing?
I really can't help but think that some people are overdramatizing this.
Bein it takes 1 year or more for training, 1bilion in skillbooks, 1 bilion in the ship itself and at least another bilion for proper fitting.
The carrier as it is can be downed easely either in lowsec or in 0.0, not to mention the almost impossibility of assigning fighters in between all the lag of large fleet engagements.
Now LAG and the UI problems aren't nowhere near of being fixed and nerfing the carriers this way is not fixing anything, its just going to frustrate the people that are training for them, have trained for them, have invested alot of time and isk in them.
Its a capital ship that executes many roles as it is atm and should be able to field its own defence, in this case in the form of fighters and/or drones, fielding 5 tops its like eerrrm i even lack the description for it but its no longer a carrier, its a logistics ships, a very expensive and useless one.
On top of that you will have heavy dictors introduced to the game wich will add to the dangers of travelling trough 0.0 with a carrier or MoM in 0.0 space.
Again, don't nerf carriers CCP. _____________________________________
|
|
Vito Parabellum
Fivrelde Corp
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 20:10:00 -
[1651]
Stupid nerf. I can't be arsed typing anything else that will be drowned out by the rabble, but this is one huge mistake.
------ When you say "no one's perfect", Chuck Norris takes this as a personal insult.
|
Mataki Onimareu
Gallente Life Extermination
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 20:13:00 -
[1652]
Edited by: Mataki Onimareu on 22/10/2007 20:13:46 CCP where did you find this guy?!?!?!?!?!
A note to all the noobs that are for this: S-T-F-U
You're in your nice little no-support skill having BS and you die to a carrier and you whine like a 6 y/o. Well look, I'm sorry you have only been playing for 3 months and you can't kill a ship that took years to build and train for.
Grow the F up you morons. I'm so tired of crap getting nerfed because noobs can't wtfbbq a titan on their 2nd day of playing.
|
jokerb
Caldari THE INQUISITI0N
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 20:14:00 -
[1653]
Originally by: Bein Glorious As a side note, I am really amazed at the amount of e-rage in this thread.
Serious question for all of you, not a troll or a flame or anything, but really just a question: was EVE not fun before carriers became common? Was it really terrible and not worth playing before you had a carrier?
This change doesn't really toss carriers/motherships out, it's just meant to make it so there's less of them. Sure, the idea could use a little modification, and the UI and lag problems still need to be taken care of, but right now it's still just an idea.
In an absolute worst-case, end-of-the-world, "twister's-a-comin!" scenario where carriers were something besides what they are now, something that you wouldn't want to fly exclusively, would the game really just not be worth playing?
I really can't help but think that some people are overdramatizing this.
You are probably right to an extent. I do think the rage comes from months of being taken into direction A. time and time again and then only to have Direction Z (where we were originally) shoved back down our throats only after months and months of planning, time and money investment into the ship class. I also believe the time and money sinks are the root of the rage. Eve's attraction to many is the involvement that comes with attaining anything of any stature within the game, is also at work in a negative way for CCP right now. The reaction is customer demonstrating their disapproval of a potential change in a product. I do think that the forums/internet allows for a coalescence of like minded people expressing themselves versus say a traditional brick and mortar company doing something similar to this. Is it right/wrong, warranted/justified, e-rage/e-peen waving? I don't know, I do know however that there are many upset customers here voicing their collective NO's.
It is time however for CCP to 'officially' respond and let us know when/if this 'idea' is being implemented. A simple Yes or No is called for here, with explanations of course.
|
Cadela Fria
Amarr Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 20:20:00 -
[1654]
Originally by: Bein Glorious As a side note, I am really amazed at the amount of e-rage in this thread.
Serious question for all of you, not a troll or a flame or anything, but really just a question: was EVE not fun before carriers became common? Was it really terrible and not worth playing before you had a carrier?
This change doesn't really toss carriers/motherships out, it's just meant to make it so there's less of them. Sure, the idea could use a little modification, and the UI and lag problems still need to be taken care of, but right now it's still just an idea.
In an absolute worst-case, end-of-the-world, "twister's-a-comin!" scenario where carriers were something besides what they are now, something that you wouldn't want to fly exclusively, would the game really just not be worth playing?
I really can't help but think that some people are overdramatizing this.
Not really relevant..EVE was fun before there was such a thing even called "Capital Ships". It's the fact that so many of us, put so much time into capital ships, and now 50% of the combat related ones, are being more or less, made useless compared to their price and effort. Glorified logistic ships.
|
Geiseric
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 20:20:00 -
[1655]
As a pilot who is investing massive time and isk into training for capitals, I think it's a bad idea to reduce fighter and drone capabilities. I don't think there's anything wrong with having ships in EVE that are powerful. As others have pointed out, carriers and moms can't fit weapon turrets and depend on fighters for their own survival. All that time and isk for a giant support ship is boring, in my opinion.
|
osahar
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 20:21:00 -
[1656]
If you nerf carriers even more, I will cancel all my 9 accounts. Simple as that. 1.5 year waster training-time... great.
Nerf yourself instead!
|
Ivanov
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 20:22:00 -
[1657]
Originally by: CCP Wrangler Making changes to EVE can be an easy or a difficult task, and a change that one person likes might not be palatable to someone else. However, these changes are made with the overall game in mind.
Zulupark makes his introductory Dev Blog from his new position in the Game Design team. Following in the footsteps of TomB and Tuxford, Zulu is now working on balancing different elements of EVE and one of the first projects he gets to work on is the relationship between Supercapitals, Fighters and Drones. Be gentle on him, he's got a tough one!
Fighters, Drones, Supercapitals and control. What's being considered? Check out Capital ships in EVE, what's up doc?.
If you introduce this patch, plz also allow all Motherships docking at a station (per week/month or only make it longer 5minutes docking procedure for example). We will need that hardly to refine them. If thats sounds a bit bitter, yes thats like i feel, but anyway, give all ally member (not only cap / supercap pilots btw.) who worked hundreds of hours to built these ships a chance to get their effort payed off and invest into something useful.
Month if not years of planning and work where invested and only because you "feel" like it today, you want to cripple the ships we worked so hard for? Change them from a real threat of the Battlefields to a joke.
|
Kariss
Gallente hirr Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 20:22:00 -
[1658]
Originally by: Bein Glorious As a side note, I am really amazed at the amount of e-rage in this thread.
Serious question for all of you, not a troll or a flame or anything, but really just a question: was EVE not fun before carriers became common? Was it really terrible and not worth playing before you had a carrier?
This change doesn't really toss carriers/motherships out, it's just meant to make it so there's less of them. Sure, the idea could use a little modification, and the UI and lag problems still need to be taken care of, but right now it's still just an idea.
In an absolute worst-case, end-of-the-world, "twister's-a-comin!" scenario where carriers were something besides what they are now, something that you wouldn't want to fly exclusively, would the game really just not be worth playing?
I really can't help but think that some people are overdramatizing this.
I loved EvE before capitals and I still would now. Then they released carriers and dreadnaughts. People spent time and money to fly one of these things.
Had caps never been introduced.. or had they been introduced and CCP had a clue about what they wanted them to be used for at the time, I'd be around 30b richer and several million SPs would be invested in something more useful. _
|
Cadela Fria
Amarr Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 20:23:00 -
[1659]
Also! I would like, once again, to remind ya'll, that I urge you NOT to attack Zulupark! He's only the messenger, and this certainly isn't his idea alone. It is the idea most of us don't like, not him - Please remember that, and be constructive
|
scally
Minmatar Omega Fleet Enterprises Executive Outcomes
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 20:24:00 -
[1660]
SOE havnt took over ccp have they? seems like the sort of thing they would do NGE anyone [url=http://exe.vizarts.de/kb/?a=pilot_detail&plt_id=43648] [/url] |
|
Bein Glorious
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 20:26:00 -
[1661]
Originally by: Dionisius Bein it takes 1 year or more for training, 1bilion in skillbooks, 1 bilion in the ship itself and at least another bilion for proper fitting.
The carrier as it is can be downed easely either in lowsec or in 0.0, not to mention the almost impossibility of assigning fighters in between all the lag of large fleet engagements.
Now LAG and the UI problems aren't nowhere near of being fixed and nerfing the carriers this way is not fixing anything, its just going to frustrate the people that are training for them, have trained for them, have invested alot of time and isk in them.
Its a capital ship that executes many roles as it is atm and should be able to field its own defence, in this case in the form of fighters and/or drones, fielding 5 tops its like eerrrm i even lack the description for it but its no longer a carrier, its a logistics ships, a very expensive and useless one.
On top of that you will have heavy dictors introduced to the game wich will add to the dangers of travelling trough 0.0 with a carrier or MoM in 0.0 space.
Again, don't nerf carriers CCP.
I agree that it can be frustrating when you train up for something and pay tons of money and by the time you get it, it's no longer useful. (I trained amarr, ECM spec skills, and t2 javelin torpedoes back when they were REALLY good, mind you) I was mostly asking that question to the people going "I WILL QUIT THIS GAME AND DEDICATE MY LIFE TO MAKING SURE CCP FEELS SORRY FOR THIS!!"
However, I think they could make this a little easier as well. For example, you need to train Jump Drive Operation V before you can trian Jump Drive Calibration and Jump Fuel Conservation. You NEED these skills if you want to be useful at all as a capship pilot. That rank alone is almost a month of training; why not drop the pre-req down to Jump Drive Operation IV? I've known dozens of people who, when they get to JDO V, just start training it, let their account lapse, and just take a break from EVE for a month because its so deathly boring. Same could be said about Advanced Spaceship Command V.
People may say, "oh no! if carriers are easier to train for, then there will be more carriers and it'll backfire completely!", but that's not true. If there are limitations upon carriers in combat similar to this blog's idea, carriers won't be overabundant because they won't be useful in every situation. It should work itself out.
Skillbook costs do have to stay. Capital skillbooks are a money sink that removes ISK from the economy, and that's pretty much why its there.
There are maybe other little changes you could make to soften the blow of something like this, but people still have to remember that this is just an idea, and it's CCP expressing concern with the community with an example of a solution. |
Baun
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 20:27:00 -
[1662]
Q F T
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Shira d'Radonis
Amarr Minmatar United Freedom Front Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 20:28:00 -
[1663]
Well, I think people have every right to think this is a bad idea (I think it is), but it seems like some people are jumping the gun. I mean, cancelling accounts? Honestly, nerf hardly seems imminent. Right now, explaining why this is bad in a cogent and calm way (as many people have done) is the best tool right now. Failing that and it goes ahead, then one can start thinking about cancellation or angry letters and protests, etc.
I think the suggestion some people have made about giving incentives to delegate fighters rather than penalties for not seems to be the best route. It accomplishes CCP's goal while at the same time keeping the carrier pilots happy. From the sound of it, it's not like Carriers are doing huge amounts of DPS. As I said before though, they SHOULD. They SHOULD be heavy damage-dealers and NOT logistical ships.
But if they do the most amount of damage in a fleet by delegating to other players, then I think that works. So long as they fulfill that critical role that a carrier is supposed to play. However, I do think that giving them turrets and missile bays and all that is a bit overboard. Yes, we know that aircraft carriers today have a lot more defensive weaponry than their WWII counterparts, but this IS a game and balance is still a factor. -----------------------------------------------
ôàquod ad ius naturale attinet, omnes homines aequales suntö
"Our histories, one day, will absolve me..." - Shira d'Radonis
|
Phillis Stein
Caldari Serenity Prime Praesidium Libertatis
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 20:29:00 -
[1664]
3B isk and 18 months of training later. Was it worth it? http://www.pixelopia.co.uk/files/signature.jpg |
Franconis
Gallente Down In Flames
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 20:29:00 -
[1665]
My carrier was blown up recently (PC overheated while I was agressed ftl), and I honestly have to say that if these changes hit TQ I won't buy another one. I'm sure it's been done in this thread, but I'd like to go through the pros and cons of flying a carrier to show why I won't fly one.
Pros: Jump drive Fighters Gang Bonuses Remote support Triage Ship Maintenance Bay
Cons: Easy Target Very Expensive VERY long training
At first glance, this looks like a great deal, but the Pros aren't quite as nice as they would seem.
Jump drive. The jump drive has great logistical capabilities and it allows you to move straight to the battlefield, which is a nice tactical feature. However, the fact that cyno fields are visible on the f10 map and on the overview makes each cyno visible to anyone anywhere. This is basically a 'come kill me' flag and is not a desirable quality in such an expensive ship. The Rorqual carries far more supplies than any carrier but doesn't jump quite as far. It is generally a much better choice than carriers for hauling supplies.
Fighters. Fighters are great in that they are quick, you can assign them to friends, they follow targets in warp, and they follow you in warp. Each fighter does a base damage of ~50 dps before skills, and 100 dps with fighters V. fighters V and carrier V each take about two months to train, but after that a normal carrier can unleash about 1000 dps and gallente carriers get 1250 dps. This of course is without DCUs. At 15-20m isk per fighter, 10 of them is about comparable to a BS in terms of damage output and price.
Gang Bonuses. Gang Bonuses are great, but it seems to me that a Fleet Command Ship can do just as well as a carrier if not better in that regard. A command ship isn't as tough as a carrier, but it is much more maneuverable and much cheaper than a carrier.
Remote Support. Carriers are great at remote support, I gotta give them that. However, they have trouble locking gangmates fast enough to support them, and they are usually sensor dampened pretty hard which doesn't help matters. A Logistics cruiser is probably a better choice for remote support because it locks faster, it's cheaper, and it can align for warp faster than a carrier.
Triage. It solves all of the logistical and tanking problems of a carrier. the problem is simply that you cannot be remotely supported and the opponent will just wait until you come out of triage to warp scramble and pop you. Triage doesn't seem to be a popular choice from the carrier pilots that I've talked to.
Ship Maintenance Bay. This is an excellent feature of the Carrier. Combined with the jump drive, this can become extremely useful. Sure you can refit or use one of these at a POS, but you might not always have a POS handy.
cons:
Easy Target. Capital ships take forever to align for warp, and once warp scrambled with just one point they're not going to jump either. They are incredibly easy to tackle and that will be even more true with the new interceptor changes.
Very Expensive. A carrier costs about 1 billion isk, with roughly 1 billion isk to fit it out with insurance, fighters, T2 modules etc. Ofc it costs more to use faction/officer gear which isn't uncommon. Skillbooks for all necessarry skills total about 1 billion as well.
Long Skill Training. I trained an alt for a carrier and a few logistical things. Carriers with basic skills take about a year just to be able to use to a decent level. Add another year to that to get your skills to a level where you can use the ship effectively.
In my opinion, carriers are just too vulnerable to be practical. It doesn't take more than a small gang to kill one, and the required investment is above and beyond it's capabilities. Add a fighter nerf, and it can't even defend itself. No thanks. _________ I R teh Minnie Meanie |
the W0rker
Federation of Synthetic Persons STYX.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 20:30:00 -
[1666]
motherships before: click after that: click
I want to contribute my opinion too: the idea of convertin carriers and motherships to pure logistic vessels will difinitely lead to their extinction. The way they are right now is nearly perfect. Both of them can handle the logistic and the offensive part. They are able to boost ships and towers what isnt exactly the most exciting part of the game. Your payback for the order to get into a fight with your capital is the only motivation you get to use this ship. Cause there are actually very few scenarios to use a ship like this in a very offensive way. You are cutting off these very few moments with the changes you're about to do. I dont wanna miss fights like these. But it seems i got to switch back to a battleship again to feel the adrenaline again. Thanx in advance for that...
regards wph
|
Xilimyth Derlin
OldBastardsPub SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 20:31:00 -
[1667]
Edited by: Xilimyth Derlin on 22/10/2007 20:31:52
Originally by: Bein Glorious
I agree that it can be frustrating when you train up for something and pay tons of money and by the time you get it, it's no longer useful. (I trained amarr, ECM spec skills, and t2 javelin torpedoes back when they were REALLY good, mind you) I was mostly asking that question to the people going "I WILL QUIT THIS GAME AND DEDICATE MY LIFE TO MAKING SURE CCP FEELS SORRY FOR THIS!!"
However, I think they could make this a little easier as well. For example, you need to train Jump Drive Operation V before you can trian Jump Drive Calibration and Jump Fuel Conservation. You NEED these skills if you want to be useful at all as a capship pilot. That rank alone is almost a month of training; why not drop the pre-req down to Jump Drive Operation IV? I've known dozens of people who, when they get to JDO V, just start training it, let their account lapse, and just take a break from EVE for a month because its so deathly boring. Same could be said about Advanced Spaceship Command V.
People may say, "oh no! if carriers are easier to train for, then there will be more carriers and it'll backfire completely!", but that's not true. If there are limitations upon carriers in combat similar to this blog's idea, carriers won't be overabundant because they won't be useful in every situation. It should work itself out.
Skillbook costs do have to stay. Capital skillbooks are a money sink that removes ISK from the economy, and that's pretty much why its there.
There are maybe other little changes you could make to soften the blow of something like this, but people still have to remember that this is just an idea, and it's CCP expressing concern with the community with an example of a solution.
The trick is though, this whole situation is getting out of hand because of training time already invested. I'm looking at significant training time myself for Carrier V and Fighter V. That's what everyone's mad about.
That sort of training time and the ship being completely changed IS salt in the wound. The Curse and Nos nerf is a prime example. People can adapt, but they want to know they're not being completely and totally screwed and thrown to the wolves.
CCP - If fighters being delegated are limited as such to 5.... is there a way to increase the fighter's firepower to the point where fighters under the carrier's control would be more then just a domi with Tech 2 heavies? It IS a capital, so putting out upwards of 1k dps isn't THAT unreasonable given the expense of the ship and the logistics to run it.
|
Ivanov
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 20:33:00 -
[1668]
Originally by: Bein Glorious I agree that it can be frustrating when you train up for something and pay tons of money and by the time you get it, it's no longer useful. (I trained amarr, ECM spec skills, and t2 javelin torpedoes back when they were REALLY good, mind you) I was mostly asking that question to the people going "I WILL QUIT THIS GAME AND DEDICATE MY LIFE TO MAKING SURE CCP FEELS SORRY FOR THIS!!"
However, I think they could make this a little easier as well. For example, you need to train Jump Drive Operation V before you can trian Jump Drive Calibration and Jump Fuel Conservation. You NEED these skills if you want to be useful at all as a capship pilot. That rank alone is almost a month of training; why not drop the pre-req down to Jump Drive Operation IV? I've known dozens of people who, when they get to JDO V, just start training it, let their account lapse, and just take a break from EVE for a month because its so deathly boring. Same could be said about Advanced Spaceship Command V.
People may say, "oh no! if carriers are easier to train for, then there will be more carriers and it'll backfire completely!", but that's not true. If there are limitations upon carriers in combat similar to this blog's idea, carriers won't be overabundant because they won't be useful in every situation. It should work itself out.
Skillbook costs do have to stay. Capital skillbooks are a money sink that removes ISK from the economy, and that's pretty much why its there.
There are maybe other little changes you could make to soften the blow of something like this, but people still have to remember that this is just an idea, and it's CCP expressing concern with the community with an example of a solution.
I can only speak for me, but i don't care about the requirements. It is a simple T1 ship, all Req @ lvl 1-4 seems to be fine. So also the younger players have a fair chance to get in a cap ship.
|
Darknesss
D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 20:34:00 -
[1669]
Can CCP please confirm that theyre burying this idea, and if they cant confirm... why not. All of eve has answered.
|
Haakelen
Gallente United Forces Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 20:34:00 -
[1670]
Originally by: Xilimyth Derlin
CCP - If fighters being delegated are limited as such to 5.... is there a way to increase the fighter's firepower to the point where fighters under the carrier's control would be more then just a domi with Tech 2 heavies? It IS a capital, so putting out upwards of 1k dps isn't THAT unreasonable given the expense of the ship and the logistics to run it.
That kind of logical, sane reasoning is not needed in a thread like this.
|
|
jokerb
Caldari THE INQUISITI0N
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 20:35:00 -
[1671]
Originally by: scally SOE havnt took over ccp have they? seems like the sort of thing they would do NGE anyone
That is the very heart of the problem. CCP sees 100 vs 100 carrier fights in the not too distant future. They know inherently that it won't be 100 vs 100 but 1100 vs 1100 (assuming 10 fighters each). That is death to the nodes. Just like people complaining about seeing Jedi everywhere (I too know the power of the NGE), its come to people referring to Eve as Capitals online. Just like Galaxies was once called Jedi Wars blah blah blah. Same perceived problem if I am not mistaken. So here I am 2 years later staring at the same threads, same arguments, same decisions just insert different names.
I remember hearing Oveur discuss not bringing the Jovian's into the game for the very same reason citing Jedi as the reason not too. I am not sure exactly if this is their thinking but it would not surprise me one bit. Take the Dread for example, very niche usage. The opposite can be said for the Carriers, no niche so the get used for a myriad of things. Mom's are a different story, I don't fly one so I will not pretend to know diddly.
|
Acacia Everto
Wings of Redemption Black Flag Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 20:37:00 -
[1672]
How about we give all capitals EWAR immunity? Wait, before you scream at me, hear me out.
EWAR immunity would require support craft with capital sensor linking modules, which each allow a capital to lock, and prevent the capital from losing sensor resolution/range. In this way, a capital would need support to continue to be effective, but if they lost this support they could still defend themselves, but are able to be jammed/damped and what not. Perhaps for each module your carrier/mothership would have a stronger lock, until a certain number when they would have full EWAR immunity. A mothership would obviously require more of these modules.
This makes people much more inclined to bring along support with this Capital Sensor Linking Arrays.
So, in short. All capitals get the POSSIBILITY of EWAR immunity. By default, on their own, they do not. But, with support using Capital Sensor Linking Arrays on them each adds a certain strength to the capital's sensors (and perhaps the ship's own slightly, to prevent easy jamming) until after say, 4-5 for a carrier it gains EWAR immunity. For a mothership, it would be more than a carrier. This ensures capitals aren't running without support and gives a new goal to gangs: to down the support, then you can then hold down the capital and destroy it.
It ensures capitals will be used more with fleets (not alts), without nerfing a capital's ability to defend its self. Isn't this what you intended? To make it necessary to work together to field a capital effectively?
|
Xilimyth Derlin
OldBastardsPub SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 20:37:00 -
[1673]
Edited by: Xilimyth Derlin on 22/10/2007 20:38:37
Originally by: Haakelen
Originally by: Xilimyth Derlin
CCP - If fighters being delegated are limited as such to 5.... is there a way to increase the fighter's firepower to the point where fighters under the carrier's control would be more then just a domi with Tech 2 heavies? It IS a capital, so putting out upwards of 1k dps isn't THAT unreasonable given the expense of the ship and the logistics to run it.
That kind of logical, sane reasoning is not needed in a thread like this.
Contrary to popular belief (I've been flamed a lot)... while I'm in support of this 5 fighter limit and the delegation, I'm NOT for the loss of the carrier's primary defense if it IS caught by one battleship and a few frigs.
And JokerB, you have a good point... I mean, it IS already being called 'Capitals Online'. It's just a fine line to try to fix.... I've already been cataloging the arguments on both sides, and it's up to 4 notebook pages front and back on pros, cons, adjustments, etc.
Though no one seems to notice that :(
|
Haakelen
Gallente United Forces Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 20:40:00 -
[1674]
Originally by: Xilimyth Derlin Edited by: Xilimyth Derlin on 22/10/2007 20:38:37
Originally by: Haakelen
Originally by: Xilimyth Derlin
CCP - If fighters being delegated are limited as such to 5.... is there a way to increase the fighter's firepower to the point where fighters under the carrier's control would be more then just a domi with Tech 2 heavies? It IS a capital, so putting out upwards of 1k dps isn't THAT unreasonable given the expense of the ship and the logistics to run it.
That kind of logical, sane reasoning is not needed in a thread like this.
Contrary to popular belief (I've been flamed a lot)... while I'm in support of this 5 fighter limit and the delegation, I'm NOT for the loss of the carrier's primary defense if it IS caught by one battleship and a few frigs.
And JokerB, you have a good point... I mean, it IS already being called 'Capitals Online'. It's just a fine line to try to fix.... I've already been cataloging the arguments on both sides, and it's up to 4 notebook pages front and back on pros, cons, adjustments, etc.
Though no one seems to notice that :(
You're being reasonable. The problem is, CCP isn't.
|
Kolwrath
Amarr
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 20:40:00 -
[1675]
I guess I am the only one who dosent think its a bad idea. Carriers in my opinion arent supposed to WTFBBQ ships. Right now carriers are used as jump freighters or BBQ mobiles. I think CCP intended them as logistics pieces. i.e they support other capitals, and other gang mates.
I would like to point out that they have *not* confirmed this change. Shesh grow up.
Man like one other poster said, the amount of rage in this forum (or heck on the General Dscussion forum) is staggering. Calm down people, really.
|
Manfred Doomhammer
Caldari ShadowTec Inc. Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 20:40:00 -
[1676]
to be honest, they should leave the drone part of the carriers and ms alone... if they want to balance them, they should fix the feature that promotes blobbing with carriers... and thats the ungodly effectiveness of spidertanking, wich moves you closer and closer to invulnerability the more carriers you have.
get rid of that, and provide a method of tackling motherships/titans in low sec, maybe nerf cloaks for capitals and supercapitals and everything would be more or less ok (apart from constant problems like lag and stuff, but thats another story) ----
CEO ShadowTec Inc. Curatores Veritatis Alliance |
Shira d'Radonis
Amarr Minmatar United Freedom Front Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 20:40:00 -
[1677]
Perhaps a solution to Carrier-heavy fleets in a blissful unnerfed world where you would really want them would be to have bandwidth apply across the fleet? One could certainly come up with a practical and realistic argument for why this would exist.
That way, you could have bonuses for delegating combined with bandwidth limitations to make having carriers useful (if not essential) but you won't be allowed to field a whole lot of them in any given battle and they will hold the unique place in a fleet battle that they deserve. -----------------------------------------------
ôàquod ad ius naturale attinet, omnes homines aequales suntö
"Our histories, one day, will absolve me..." - Shira d'Radonis
|
Pallidum Treponema
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 20:41:00 -
[1678]
From the Wikipedia article about Starwars Galaxies:
Quote: New Game Enhancements
Another set of game changes dubbed the "New Game Enhancements" (NGE) was announced on 3 November 2005 and started testing the next day. It went live on 15 November via digital download, and became available in retail as the Star Wars Galaxies: Starter Kit on 22 November. Changes included the reduction of the 34 original professions to 9 "iconic" ones. The NGE changes also included a massive overhaul to the gameplay, deemphasizing the importance of tradeskills and replacing the CU combat system with a faster first-person shooter style game. Jedi Knight powers and status, once obtainable only after extremely long hours of play, became available to characters as starting class.
The launch of the NGE introduced new bugs, broken quests, and induced client side lag. There were criticisms of the changes in several reviews, and negative player feedback was noted by media outlets outside the gaming industry, including CBS News, New York Times, New York Post and Wired Magazine. On Slashdot, John Smedley explained that they felt it necessary to revamp the game to the NGE in order to reverse the deterioration they were seeing in the subscriber base.
The development team affirmed this is their desired direction for the game, and they are slowly modifying parameters to address players' desires. This progress includes the re-introduction of some pre-NGE features that were removed, such as creature handling, target locking, auto-firing, the ability to fire special attacks from their keys, and the option to keep the camera behind the character, rather than the NGE's over-the-shoulder perspective.
Since then, the development team has given each profession a set of "Expertise trees" to bring back some complexity and differentiation to characters.
After the announcement that SOE had acquired the MMORPG Vanguard: Saga of Heroes, Smedley addressed that game's players, many of whom had come from Star Wars Galaxies, about the perceived threat of major changes to the game:
We've learned a thing or two with our experiences with the NGE and don't plan on repeating mistakes from the past and not listening to the players. ùJohn Smedley, president of Sony Online Entertainment
Protest against carrier changes |
Xilimyth Derlin
OldBastardsPub SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 20:43:00 -
[1679]
Originally by: Haakelen You're being reasonable. The problem is, CCP isn't.
I think perhaps CCP IS being reasonable and listening to all of this, hopefully planning something everyone can KINDA agree on....
It's just there's no communication which is fanning the flames. Eris, Ouv, someone needs to come in, even just say "we're taking this...this..and this... into consideration."
Come on CCP. I know a lot of people are being rude and not being constructive... but give us some more hints on what you're thinking to. It will go a LONG way for everyone on both sides I promise.
|
Vandalias
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 20:44:00 -
[1680]
Originally by: Acacia Everto How about we give all capitals EWAR immunity?
I'd support an ewar immunity for all cap ships with the exception of web/scram... or maybe just scram. Regardless there should be some way to hold down carriers/dreads in low sec.
|
|
Finlander09
The Scope
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 20:53:00 -
[1681]
If this happens. May i have litlle chances to my WASTE skills?? capital skills chanced to someting usefull?
Maybe i reprosess my ship cause they will be worthless and build ore capital for my self.
|
Plague Rexus
Gallente D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 20:53:00 -
[1682]
Edited by: Plague Rexus on 22/10/2007 20:55:00 This is the only dev blog issue i have ever thought passionately about to post on.
My god CCP what are you thinking!
There are so many issues to start with here i dont know where too start. Firstly the sickening feeling that i have essentially wasted over a year of training time on something which you are intentionally about to break. To make a carrier on its own more vulnerable then a battleship is both a ridiculous concept both in terms of realism and game mechanics. Capital battles are already rare enough and difficult enough without introducing game mechanics which quadruple the amount of players you have to field to make carriers and motherships viable tools of war.
I rarely get to use my carrier in battles due to the very specific combat situations in which they can be used and i think many players will join me in agreeing that applying this kind of nerf will bring carrier use down to extremely low levels. Carriers are currently doing what they should be able to do in films, in books, what they should be able to do in any sci fi minded head. They are not broken.
If you want to make carrier more inclusive or more useful in battles then give bonuses for delegation, but dont make a carrier or mothership pilot useless in his own hard earned ship. What you are essentially suggesting is that carriers and motherships should be giant logistics ships. If you play the game and im sure you do you will know that very few people fly those ships by choice, the are no fun. Its like volunteering to be a fuel truck in a convoy, it isnt gonna happen or if it does it wont happen much and it certainly wont be fun.
Then you have server issues, to make a carrier useful i need 4 buddies for all my drones and maybe some spare buddies if they die/log off/ run away. Now our capital fleet needs 300 support, all micromanaging. Like the pos changes your are forcing more and more players into battles when technology says you shouldnt. Currently a carrier gang can face off against a large battleship gang reduce the numbers but still have a fair fight and one equal in isk.
Then theres choice, at the moment i can delegate my fighters if i want and they can be utilised effectively by my gangmates, i can stay out of dangerous fights even though it is boring, but if i want i can get up close and personal and play a major part myself, without having to worry about my gangmates making stupid decisions with my expensive fighters like taking them to enemy pos's. Your are taking choice you have given us away. If i have little control over the abilities of my own ship, i dont see why i should fly it. Im all for benefitting others in my ship but i want its abilities for myself, because you know what, i paid for them, i trained for them, and i risk all that cash every time for them. Thats what i pay and what i expect is fun. You are thinking of limiting a ship and the abilities of a ship that is already limited in options, risk and combat.
Carriers and motherships are eve endgame ships, they should be powerful, they should for the investment be able to kill a battleship on there own they SHOULD, they are not broken and they dont need fixing if you want to encourage other ways of using them use bonuses no nerfs.I know from talking to almost every pilot in my corp. That that post on its own has gone further to alienate your hardcore old playerbase then any other devblog post. Capital ships are our dream, please please be careful when you consider breaking that dream.
Please please rethink because im staring a bleaker eve in the face.
|
xOmGx
Warriors tribe United Legion
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 21:00:00 -
[1683]
Edited by: xOmGx on 22/10/2007 21:01:38 Lets see in Real life Carrier - Main Damage dealer in combat. 1000 (1250) DPS from Capital ship isn't much (carrier NOT mothership) using 10 fighters
Mothership should be boosted (Armor/Shoeld/Cap), Titan requare some boost too BTW.
Carier should be a Main Force in Fleet engagements same as in RL
PS. Releated to WW2 Carrier become MAIN force and all other ship's support, so be it.
PPS. if you don't like Motherships in 0.1-0.4 space make more anvance propulsion Jamming (Capital Jamming device) No Pain - No Gain |
Xilimyth Derlin
OldBastardsPub SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 21:03:00 -
[1684]
Actually, that's not a bad idea..... Since this would be a significant change... let me ask this CCP as I play devils advocate.
Players trained for Carriers which played a certain way for an entire year, forgoing training in other things they may have been interested in. They are now being changed significantly altering their purpose.
If the players don't like the new role, feasibly how hard is it to allow a 'SP exchange' so they can go into something else they skipped for the carrier?
I know I have a few alliance mates who trained for that solo power, calling them the best PVP capitals, but WERE going to go into ship production, dreads and command ships (three different people here). So if this does go through, and the final change is not to their liking.... IS it possible on a technical level for a limited respec (ie, only respeccing carrier related skills) so the time isn't wasted?
After all, it is VASTLY different then training for 2 weeks to jump into a different race's battleship.
|
Zorok
Tactical Precision
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 21:06:00 -
[1685]
I do not own a carrier however I have to say that I dislike this idea. A carrier is a large investment of money so the whole idea of making it a "balanced" ship is unfair to those who invested the time and money into building a ship such as this. Carriers do require support as it is. They are slow and cumbersome and take forever to lock smaller targets. Forcing these pilots to give their drones to other players puts way too much trust on the other players to effectively manage the drones. If the carrier pilot does have the skills to pilot 20 fighters then they deserve to be able to fly them. As it stands, I see no major issue with the fighters. Perhaps you could make them more suseptable to smartbomb damage and make them harder to hit with more conventional weapons so that a smartbomb can take them down fairly quickly but trying to shoot them is nearly impossible. Just a suggestion if you want "balance". Whatever you do, don't nerf the number of drones individual pilots can fly. You'll basically make the ship worthless if you do.
|
Kassandra Kulzaan
Deadspace Armada
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 21:10:00 -
[1686]
Well, I guess I ought to thank for saving me months of training. The ability to control that many drones/fighters was the only thing that appealed to me about cap ships. I think its a very bad idea, to be honest. Drop them to 10, ok, its still more than a normal ship. I mean, seriously, its a bleedin carrier, it's supposed to handle more, not just delegate off "drones" that cost 5x that of the bloke's ship who controls your precious fighters. Please don't ruin my dream of having an awesome carrier. :(
|
Entschlossen
Seraphin Technologies Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 21:10:00 -
[1687]
Edited by: Entschlossen on 22/10/2007 21:16:01 If this changes hit Tranquility you remove more high end content from this game. I don't think i speak only for myself, when i say that everybody on this game needs a personal goal, which you choose by yourself. I have the feeling you remove that content bit by bit from the game. When we don't see any Caps and Supercaps on the Battlefield (and they have to be effective to be found there), whats next?
Capital Ships are the only Ships which hurts to loose, and i need that feeling to find a fight interesting, the possibility to loose something "worthful". I can remember times when i sat in front of my PC stunned for 5 minutes, could't believed my ship exploded. I started every fight afraid of a possible loss. Now EVE has reached a level where it's a bit like WOW, uups i died, no problem, i jump in my new BS and here we go. Atm the only thing i fear when loosing a standard fleet ship is, **** i have to travel it back to 0.0.
I already miss these old times, but the carriers/ms had replaced that for me. So when you remove Capitals from the War plz do some other needed changes:
1. remove these inflatinal ship insurence system 2. at leats tripple the production costs of T2 ships and for mods increase it by 10x 3. increase the production costs of every T1 Ship and Module by 30% (if you like also for caps :- )
would make the game much more interesting.
|
MonkSEALPup
The Ankou The Reckoning.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 21:11:00 -
[1688]
On Armageddon day, a few devs were taking on a player's MS outside Jita 4-4. The devs lost. Now this.
Dismissed as coincidence....?
On a serious note - this is completely ridiculous. Let us look at a more extreme example:
A Titan, by itself, can kill nearly every ship in the game, and an infinite number of them if they are on grid - all with the click of one mod. Isn't a titan intended to be a ship used in gangs? Doesn't it give inherent gang bonuses? I mean, surely the titan was not intended to be used solo. Then why not make it so the DD has to be delegated in bite-size chunks to gang members who must simultaneouly detonate their "mini DDs"?
Well, I'll tell you why not, because nerfing Titan damage would be wrong. It would be an insult to the player base that put years into training characters to get to the point where they could fly them, and to the months of logistics boredom that went into building them.
Now, Motherships aren't as expensive, or take as many resources to build, but they represent nearly the same effort and commitment.
Oh, looky here, a Rorqual, what's this?
20% bonus to drone damage and hitpoints per level. And it has a clone vat bay. Think about it
A mothership outdamaged by a ship that can't even damage veldspar?
Seriously, CCP, there is a thing called 'escalation of commitment', when a person defends their position even more in proportion to how ridiculous their position becomes. Don't be those guys. Don't be the company that, having lost its focus, redoubles its efforts in the wrong direction.
BTW - I am stealing this sig - it's perfect. Thanks to whoever actually made it.
|
Butter Dog
The Littlest Hobos Insurgency
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 21:14:00 -
[1689]
Absolutely God-awful idea. Here is why:
* CCP actively encouraged frontline use of carriers (with the 500% HP increase for one) as they were rarely used on the frontline, and kept inside a POS delegating fighters * CCP are trying to reduce blobbing and over-reliance on sheer numbers to win fights, and to give greater numbers a competitive disadvanatge (ECM bursts, bombs etc - however flawed, the intention is there). * Carriers ALREADY die if they are not supported... lone carriers on gates etc are prime picking for roaming gangs, who love nothing better than killing unsupported carriers.
Now, this TERRIBLE idea will go against these principals in the following ways.
* Carriers are less likely to be frontlined and will go back to a POS hugging delegation role, reversing the trend CCP themselves were encouraging * Blob sizes will increase to ensure maximum fighter delegation, increasing lag and reducing playablity * Unsupported carriers are already as good as dead versus competent PvPers... support is an essential part of carrier groups already, so this change brings nothing new to the gameplay
Basically, to summarise, its a poorly thought out idea and you really should give yourselves a collective slap on the wrists, get back to work, and focus on something that actually needs fixing. Carriers are pretty balanced as they are.
----------
|
Bon Hedus
Amarr O.E.C Legionnaire Services Ltd.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 21:15:00 -
[1690]
As stated before, by multiple people, in many different ways of saying the same thing...
NO
And again as stated before...
could we get another Dev reply on this?
Thank you.
-------------------------------------- Heavy Lag Spike II belonging to EvE Cluster Node #0815 hits your Connection, wrecking your latency to 998ms
|
|
Ztrain
Evolution Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 21:15:00 -
[1691]
Originally by: Kolwrath I guess I am the only one who dosent think its a bad idea. Carriers in my opinion arent supposed to WTFBBQ ships. Right now carriers are used as jump freighters or BBQ mobiles. I think CCP intended them as logistics pieces. i.e they support other capitals, and other gang mates.
No unless we again have CCP designers saying one thing and not being able to figure out how to implement it. If they wanted carriers and moms to be logistics ships then why would have have removed the ability to haul stuff in containers within the industrials in the carriers and moms? Ohh yes because they have no idea what they want to do.
At least in SoE's defense they knew what they wanted to do they just didn't know the gamers wouldn't like it. In this instance with CCP the developers have shown a history of:
- Stating they want one thing just to several months down the road to do a 180 (changes we see in carriers and other ships being repurposed)
- State they want to do something (remove blobs)just to remove the best tools for doing that. (changes to POS and outpost warefair that require blobing to have an effect)
- Relase features in patch notes that are not actually changed in game(such as data core agents that were't added till much later)
- Claim that they are serious about fixing buggs and performance inssues instead of adding new features (even wrote a blog about it) and now we see that they are still trying to change things that don't need fixing.
So my question is when is CCP actually going to stop lying to their clients about what their intentions are with a product we're paying RL money for and get developers that can actually implement and develop to their stated intentions. Because as of right now we see that the current staff is either unable or unwilling to do what is necessary.
Summery for the devloper impaired: Fix your ****
Z CCP (Producers of Slide Show Online) takin the fun out of EVE, one patch at a time. |
Dionisius
Gallente Critical Analysis Te-Ka
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 21:17:00 -
[1692]
Originally by: Bein Glorious
Originally by: Dionisius Bein it takes 1 year or more for training, 1bilion in skillbooks, 1 bilion in the ship itself and at least another bilion for proper fitting.
The carrier as it is can be downed easely either in lowsec or in 0.0, not to mention the almost impossibility of assigning fighters in between all the lag of large fleet engagements.
Now LAG and the UI problems aren't nowhere near of being fixed and nerfing the carriers this way is not fixing anything, its just going to frustrate the people that are training for them, have trained for them, have invested alot of time and isk in them.
Its a capital ship that executes many roles as it is atm and should be able to field its own defence, in this case in the form of fighters and/or drones, fielding 5 tops its like eerrrm i even lack the description for it but its no longer a carrier, its a logistics ships, a very expensive and useless one.
On top of that you will have heavy dictors introduced to the game wich will add to the dangers of travelling trough 0.0 with a carrier or MoM in 0.0 space.
Again, don't nerf carriers CCP.
I agree that it can be frustrating when you train up for something and pay tons of money and by the time you get it, it's no longer useful. (I trained amarr, ECM spec skills, and t2 javelin torpedoes back when they were REALLY good, mind you) I was mostly asking that question to the people going "I WILL QUIT THIS GAME AND DEDICATE MY LIFE TO MAKING SURE CCP FEELS SORRY FOR THIS!!"
However, I think they could make this a little easier as well. For example, you need to train Jump Drive Operation V before you can trian Jump Drive Calibration and Jump Fuel Conservation. You NEED these skills if you want to be useful at all as a capship pilot. That rank alone is almost a month of training; why not drop the pre-req down to Jump Drive Operation IV? I've known dozens of people who, when they get to JDO V, just start training it, let their account lapse, and just take a break from EVE for a month because its so deathly boring. Same could be said about Advanced Spaceship Command V.
People may say, "oh no! if carriers are easier to train for, then there will be more carriers and it'll backfire completely!", but that's not true. If there are limitations upon carriers in combat similar to this blog's idea, carriers won't be overabundant because they won't be useful in every situation. It should work itself out.
Skillbook costs do have to stay. Capital skillbooks are a money sink that removes ISK from the economy, and that's pretty much why its there.
There are maybe other little changes you could make to soften the blow of something like this, but people still have to remember that this is just an idea, and it's CCP expressing concern with the community with an example of a solution.
I agree with your points, my frustration comes only from the nerf itself and i will not cancel my account only redirect my training towards Dreadnoughts instead of carriers, that way i benefit from the training jumpdrives and all that, even more with the new Marauder class elite bs requiring those skills.
Now CCP is simply nerfing stuff, and carriers isn't one of those things that need a nerf, as to the rest i agree with what you wrote. _____________________________________
|
Krait
Caldari OHG Corp
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 21:18:00 -
[1693]
Once again, CCP penalizes people for playing the game as designed instead of as the way CCP wishes it would be played.
People spend a significant amount of effort converting their real time to assets to enable the purchase of skills and equipment, that is wasted by CCP's reverse engineering.
_______________________________________________
...been there, done that |
Marosia Lisaiya
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 21:19:00 -
[1694]
<- alt of a new player (2-3 months)
I became tired of World of Warcraft and decided to take a shot at EVE. Finally a game where character age, social skills, strategic thinking and relatively long-term planning all were relevant. Raiding for a couple of years in WoW was fun, sure, but when new players who just decided to go for it hardcore for a couple of weeks were able to surpass you in gear (which, unfortunately, meant a lot for "skills" in that game) it became tedious.
To the point. I don't fly a Carrier, have not been in a huge fleet battle, was not around when the last changes to Carriers were done.. etc. I'm basically looking at this game from a new, although relatively well-informed (as in forum and questions) players standpoint. Despite all this, I must say this idea is one of the worst ideas I've read about in my online-game career. Why?
longer training + relatively expensive skills -> advantages
I don't have any problem whatsoever with this. If I, given some months, train straight for a T2-fitted tanking BS or Drake, I would have absolutely no problem getting killed/ganked by one or more capital ships of whatever type. This, for me, is part of what makes EVE interesting. Dedication and long-term plans should result in advantages. Why not increase the Carriers ability to support and make "DPS-carriers" appear as fools on the battlefield instead?
For a couple of finishing words; yes, I was thinking about training for a Carrier and have made plenty of EVEMon-plans for that skill path. Now, however, they are put on hold until this abomination of an idea is scrapped.
|
Plague Rexus
Gallente D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 21:20:00 -
[1695]
I have to post twice just to say NO again.
|
Constantinee
Caldari Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 21:21:00 -
[1696]
Edited by: Constantinee on 22/10/2007 21:27:02 Zul and devs.....
you all fail...
that is all.
no wait it isent!
This is going to make carriers and moms just mobile repair units. Carriers and moms were made for this purpose with the fighters and you guys at ccp know it. So what is some slaphead decides to whine that he got incinarated by 12 fighters from a carrier or 20 from a mom. if you dont like it then tough.
These ships were MENT to do just that no sit there deal out fighters to players in big ass fleet fights and cause more lag for everyone then expected. I guarentee you all carrier and mom pilots will start complaining once this hits.
i have to leave the house i will add more when i return. --------------------
FRICK
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 21:21:00 -
[1697]
Originally by: Malachon Draco ...something needs to be done or otherwise we will end up with 100 carriers vs 100 carriers in a few months time.
And what is wrong with that??? It would be an epic battle, were it not for lag....
Is it really any different than 100 bs vs. 100 bs?
When all is said and done, it's 100 ships vs. 100 ships.
A 100v100 battle between carriers would be very boring, since no-one would die (except a lot of fighters). If any of them wanted to achieve something, they'd need huge support fleets, battleships and down.
Lag is a problem, but first of all, this isn't done because of lag (according to CCP), and secondly lag caused by carriers is not different from lag caused by other ships. When you reach 200+ fighting on grid, the node grinds to a halt anyway....
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Macmuelli
Gallente Gallente Mercantile Exchange Coalition Of Empires
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 21:24:00 -
[1698]
Edited by: Macmuelli on 22/10/2007 21:31:01 Edited by: Macmuelli on 22/10/2007 21:25:54 With this idea it looks like more teamwork. But in the end it s a sifgnificant change making them helpless.
U wanna have more smal fleet fights but doing this will form up bigger ffleets to cover all possible situations. Supporting the gang via remote repairing, woud be kicked by ew pretty easy.( loggingtime for your support 30 secs + ... bs under focus fire 5 seconds ?) electronic attack ships? which instat ew them?
In the end its easier to kill the capital then.
the only possible thing i woud see doing it is :
Players setttings to drones that they get instantly a new " owner" if they will be delegated. Means if player A has 5 fighter drones and got killed .. the fighter drones move automaticly to player b ( setted by carrierpilot)
Boost up the signatur radius to let capital pilots log faster there gangmembers to remote repair them etc.
If all players getting killed by the enemie fleet and there are drones left. The Capitalpilot will have a dmg/ hp boost to this 5 drones he can use. (75 % of the actualy dmg like now)This woud make them not so heavy like now, but he will have a chance to survie... Perhaps
Reduce the costs on fighters , which make them more affordable to loose.
breg mac.
Ps : CCP had sayed " It s an Idea how WE wanna have/see them". Its not a " FIX ". And will be discussed. The community answered with " Good bye... etc.." As a capital pilot who had invest a lot if skilltime in it, i m angry to. CCP should give much more Details about this changing and how will compense the big lost of his own defense on capitals.
"Ein jeder ernte Ruhm auf seine Weise.....Gunnar von Hlidarendi "
|
Dragothur0
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 21:27:00 -
[1699]
Edited by: Dragothur0 on 22/10/2007 21:36:08 Edited by: Dragothur0 on 22/10/2007 21:35:27 Iv played this game for a a year and a half and nothing in these forums has annoyed me enough to post intill now...
I cant belive you could even think about doing this to carriers, they are a end game ship which take alot of time to train for a fair amount of ISK to aquire which was personaly a End Game goal to gain, which is going to be turned into somthing which i see as a total waste of my Time and Isk.
I trained to long for this Ship for it to be nerfd to hell and some of the things i have heard when speaking to corp mates it even quiting EVE over this change. The lag problems are bad enough in the large capital engagments, by requiring 4 extra guys to make a carrier "Effective", is just adding fuel to the fire.
I do not want to hand over a 100m's worth of fighters to some randoms to go play with, that could just go warp to a enemy pos. I think this could be the most Epic Fail in EVE changes in history, if this goes ahead.
|
infinityshok
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 21:33:00 -
[1700]
My constructive response to this carrier drone rapery devblog is a cordial suggestion to go back to QC with due haste. Or anywhere else you are not permitted to come up with any suggestions that have any affect on any EVE related subject matter of any sort. There are openings in the janitorial department...get going.
A marginally tanked BS is capable of defending against a carriers fighters. If anything fighters should have their damage capabilities INCREASED. And more skills that actually affect fighters.
For someone to suggest motherships be able to control 5 fighters solo makes one wonder how many kilos of ***** one would have to smoke to come up with this suggestion that would qualify one for the nobel prize of ********ry.
In summary, no. Hell no. Eff no.
|
|
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 21:36:00 -
[1701]
Originally by: James Duar Quoted from Game Development because I feel it much more accurately addresses the lag issues related to fighter/drone amounts.
Originally by: James Duar The most straight forward answer to lag from drones in a "drone number" sense is to change drones into "drone squadrons" and cap every ship at 5 squadrons maximum.
On small ships, nothing changes - you have 1 drone per squadron.
On carriers however you might have anywhere from 1 to 5 fighters per squadron. Motherships would be defined as fielding squadrons with more fighters in them then motherships.
This neatly ensures that every ship is only launching a maximum of 5 additional entities, while retaining the versatility and DPS of carriers and motherships as the currently stand.
That sounds like a pretty sensible and solid solution tbh. Less processing overhead for the servers while not nerfing carriers or motherships at all (unless you are REALLY into micro managing your drones). May still be some graphical lag due to the total number of drones / fighters, but hopefully trinity will solve that problem.
|
Reptzo
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 21:37:00 -
[1702]
CCP, can we get some kind of response, other than telling us to keep talking?? Will you say SOMETHING, ANYTHING. Tell us to shove it and deal, or that it isn't going to happen, or that you don't like capitals. ANYTHING!!! You said you were watching this thread closely, in 66 pages there have been 5 or 6 responses, and none of them giving any info other then sounding like you were doing this anyways, despite asking how we felt.
CCP JUST SAY SOMETHING!!!!!!!!
|
Shhadoww
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 21:40:00 -
[1703]
Ok if you want to balance the game heres how you do it..... Eliminate all ships except frigates, Eliminate skills, Eliminate races, then everyone will fly the same ships, do the same damage, and not have anything to b**ch about.
Give it a month and you wont have any players left...
In other words please quit trying to reduce the game to the lowest common denominator. Just as an FYI IRL 1 carrier can take out an entire fleet, it is the most powerful ship in the navy. |
SIr Urza
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 21:42:00 -
[1704]
The idea to Nerf Capital drone ships is ********!! If you havn't read it yet... here is a link in which GAMERS give the BOOT to your idea... If you don't listen to the GAMERS ergo CLIENTS... you gonna get the boot yourself.
Link:
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=618303&page=1
|
Martin Mckenna
D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 21:42:00 -
[1705]
Wow!
This is bad news. Realy CCP your gona lose subscribers over this one.
---------------------------------------------
|
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 21:42:00 -
[1706]
Edited by: XoPhyte on 22/10/2007 21:45:50
Originally by: CCP Eris Discordia
Originally by: Sin mez
Do you even play the game? And talking about bias like that when it's pretty obvious you're full of it is disgraceful. What are you thinking? Do you even understand your own playerbase, or for that matter your own game? If one would look at the dev comments without bias they would realize the devs have lost touch in a big way.
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.
Heres a thought, finish your training for a carrier, then fly one, THEN post about the "I win" button. Because as it stands right now it sounds like you don't have any idea what you are talking about if you think a carrier is an "I win" button. It's further disgraceful that you would accuse the mass amounts of of people in these forums that would reject that all of their training, time and effort would be wiped away because of your misconceptons of how carriers are an "I win" ships.
As for constructive criticism what do you expect? All that was announced was that you ôdidnÆt like the direction things were goingö and your plan was to nerf carriers and motherships. No explanation as to why the nerf to begin with, of what you hoped to accomplish. Now reading your statements further I see that you think that carriers are an instant ôI winö button yet you have never flown a carrier yourself. So pretty much our assessment that CCP is out of touch with the player base is spot on, thank you for confirming it.
|
Alenar Rumanev
Minmatar The Nine Gates
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 21:44:00 -
[1707]
Apologies if these have been stated before (66 pages makes for a long thread).
What exactly is imbalanced that needs fixing with this nerf? Is it A: Lag, B: LowSec Motherships, or C: Some sort of feeling that carriers unfairly advantage high skilled players?
Lag and LowSec problems have been commented to death, both here and elsewhere, so to save space I won't bother explaining why there are much better ways to fix said problems.
If the answer is C, then I ask this: what would be the purpose of a carrier or mothership after the proposed change? Motherships are even more nerfed by this than carriers, you literally can bring 2 carriers and 2 support pilots and accomplish the exact same damage as a mothership for around 1/10 the cost. You'd get more remote repping, more effective HP, and only lose the EW immunity, which is mainly just dampener immunity now in 0.0 Why would anyone ever bother with a MS, when the two carriers mentioned above can do the same job, and be fully insured?
What role would they have left?
Hauling: The Rorqual or the proposed jump freighter can do that much better. Titans with jump bridges also fill this role. Why use the carrier? Repping: Not useful in fleet fights on anything other than other carriers / MS, which likely won't need it after this proposed change. In small gangs, logistic ships are better because they can move (and roam) and can lock much faster. The carrier is only useful now because of the added firepower. Damage: In small gangs, a dominix would be better and cheaper, as well as mobile, for the reasons mentioned previously. In fleets, the carriers could be used by defenders from POSes in system, providing an enormous advantage to the defense. They could set up with fighters already delegated and deployed on grid, leaving the attackers to jump in and lag out without even being able to use their fighters in response. At least now the lag is a crapshoot. Plus, what was the point of all the previous changes designed to force carriers to fight if you leave them only viable from a POS / safespot again?
In short, this change is ill conceived and will render carriers pointless. If you detest them this much, just remove them entirely and refund all of our lost training time and cash. Without use of their fighters, they'd be better off gone anyway.
In closing, realize that you have managed to do something that hardly every happens in this game, force ~90-95% of the playerbase (who normally detest each other) to agree on something. This in and of itself should tell you that this change is not for the best.
|
SIr Urza
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 21:45:00 -
[1708]
Originally by: Mashie Saldana Sweet, this is definitely a move in the right direction.
U riding the white dragon or sumthing?
|
Deviana Sevidon
Gallente Cataclysm Enterprises Kraftwerk.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 21:45:00 -
[1709]
Great work CCP, really great.
When Carriers were first introduced, only a few month after I joined, the became my personal goal. Whatever it would take, I would fly one and bring Fighters into Battle and I never strayed too far from this goal. But Carriers were also Endgame Content for me. The personal thing for my character to achieve. Flyint this ship and flying it well.
Now that I just became a Carrier Pilot, CCP wants to take it away from me. Making this ship oversized and useless vessels, only suited for idling at a POS and assigning Fighters, while others have fun.
I do not know if there is really a point in this game. Yes, EVE is awesome in the aspect, that one can set himself longterm goals and work toward them, but I only hear about nerfing this and nerfing that. Whats the point in reaching a goal, when it has been already nerfed by the time you get there?
The best solution is to give Zulupark a really important job. How about recommending him for a job at Blizzard or Sony, with his really great balancing skills?
|
Malachon Draco
eXceed Inc. INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 21:45:00 -
[1710]
Originally by: Kerfira
Originally by: Malachon Draco ...something needs to be done or otherwise we will end up with 100 carriers vs 100 carriers in a few months time.
And what is wrong with that??? It would be an epic battle, were it not for lag....
Is it really any different than 100 bs vs. 100 bs?
When all is said and done, it's 100 ships vs. 100 ships.
A 100v100 battle between carriers would be very boring, since no-one would die (except a lot of fighters). If any of them wanted to achieve something, they'd need huge support fleets, battleships and down.
Lag is a problem, but first of all, this isn't done because of lag (according to CCP), and secondly lag caused by carriers is not different from lag caused by other ships. When you reach 200+ fighting on grid, the node grinds to a halt anyway....
Well, aside from the server melting due to up to 3000 fighters being assigned in such a fight, nothing I guess ------------------------------------------------
|
|
Sonisha
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 21:49:00 -
[1711]
I Enjoy In Eve The Ability To Be A Solo Player, After 4 Years, And Now Being Able To Fly A Carrier, Its Time To Nerf It. Personally I Think This Would Be A Bad Idea. The Carriers Design IS To Be A Drone Carrier, Fine. If You Happen To Like Being In A Large Corp, This Steps On The Little Guy That Has Worked To Get This Far Then Go Waste 4 months of training the skills to level 5, Then Thats A Big Black Mark, And Once Again, Makes Me Wonder Why It Was Worth It, And If Indeed Its Worth Carrying On.
Long Live 'Eve, Be What You Want To Be' Type Game Play Instead OF Be Nerfed Because You Like Solo.
A Carrier Is Big, Armoured, No Guns. Take Away Drones Control, Solo Carrier Pilot With Only A Guiding Weak Cruiser = Why Bother.
There Are Plenty Of Carrier Destroying Dreadnoughts And Other Carriers Around To Deal With Them, Why Change? Not An Improvement In My Opinion.
Also Then Limiting Level 5 Missions To Non-Solo Players = Boring, No Point In A Carrier At All. |
Xilimyth Derlin
OldBastardsPub SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 21:50:00 -
[1712]
CCP Dev Team:
I know MOST of the player base posting here have not been constructive, have flamed the heck out of you, insulted you, and have generally been unreasonable, BUT they just want an answer on the time they've invested.
Tell us something for those that already have them AND those like myself that are working towards capitals. I'm up to 4 and a quarter pages of material from this to balance and plan where I go after Capitals III is finished... and info definitely will help ^^
|
Ricky1989
Caldari Battlestars GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 21:51:00 -
[1713]
I vote this the biggest and crappest nerf in this century!
Love Ricky1989.
"I Can Make A Mess Like Nobody's Business" |
dastommy79
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 21:51:00 -
[1714]
OH FFS THIS IS THE DUMBEST IDEA EVER
Do you even know what its like being a cap pilot these days. Capitals need an F'n boost not a nerf.
Fire this guy please
I driks alots |
Snakebloke
Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 21:52:00 -
[1715]
Originally by: Sonisha I Enjoy In Eve The Ability To Be A Solo Player, After 4 Years, And Now Being Able To Fly A Carrier, Its Time To Nerf It. Personally I Think This Would Be A Bad Idea. The Carriers Design IS To Be A Drone Carrier, Fine. If You Happen To Like Being In A Large Corp, This Steps On The Little Guy That Has Worked To Get This Far Then Go Waste 4 months of training the skills to level 5, Then Thats A Big Black Mark, And Once Again, Makes Me Wonder Why It Was Worth It, And If Indeed Its Worth Carrying On.
Long Live 'Eve, Be What You Want To Be' Type Game Play Instead OF Be Nerfed Because You Like Solo.
A Carrier Is Big, Armoured, No Guns. Take Away Drones Control, Solo Carrier Pilot With Only A Guiding Weak Cruiser = Why Bother.
There Are Plenty Of Carrier Destroying Dreadnoughts And Other Carriers Around To Deal With Them, Why Change? Not An Improvement In My Opinion.
Also Then Limiting Level 5 Missions To Non-Solo Players = Boring, No Point In A Carrier At All.
I couldn't agree more... ------------------------
|
000Hunter000
Gallente Magners Marauders
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 21:53:00 -
[1716]
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.
I finally found her posts and just lolled really hard, bit touchy arn't we? Wasn't the eve motto adapt and live with it? Well u guys made a really REALLY bad move, now adapt allready and admit it was a really REALLY bad move.
If u guys try to shove this down the playerbases throats cuz ur too proud to admit u were wrong.. well only thing i can say is good luck on the fanfest, i bet u will be very popular there
Oh man, when i first read about this i was angry, now i just think it is insanely funny and can't wait to find out how the fanfest is going when u haven't given up on this idea when it starts.
Just a shame i can't be there CCP, let us pay the online shop with Direct Debit!!! Magners is now recruiting, evemail me or Dagazbo ingame.
|
Avos Sova
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 21:59:00 -
[1717]
It's getting near 2k posts in under 2 days time, I wager CCP hasn't had time to decide on a proper response since this was more on an introduction to a new dev more then anything else.
I would suggest that instead of making game breaking sweeping changes to ships you instead introduce more ships, ships designed to fit those roles. Everyone loves more options even if noone uses them. Adding more ships would be seen as a positive thing instead of invalidating all the time people put into the ships they are currently using.
|
Elmicker
Black Sea Industries Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 22:01:00 -
[1718]
Edited by: Elmicker on 22/10/2007 22:02:22
Originally by: CCP Eris Discordia you need look further then your own win button
WTB: Carrier that is a "win button". Have you ever flown one, Eris?
Quote: ...explain why you think it will not meet our goals. That is constructive criticism.
Well, we could, if you told us what your goals are. So far all i've heard is "carriers are imbalanced". This is not a goal, this is a reason. However, that's not to say that this reason's right. Carriers are balanced, as you might be able to tell from the 70 pages of 99% negativity with added verone.
|
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 22:02:00 -
[1719]
Originally by: Bon Hedus It keeps sounding like the underlying problem is people camping low sec with MS, or dropping MS into low sec. So ban MS from low sec.
You don't want to ban them from lowsec, there ARE reasons for carriers and motherships to go to low sec. However you may want to limit their firepower in those areas, only so as to let smaller corporations get their feet wet before coming to 0.0.
|
Manas
The Graduates Brutally Clever Empire
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 22:03:00 -
[1720]
This hysterical overreaction, RAMPANT CAPITALIZATION, and personal attacks on Zulupark is one of the saddest things I've seen.
One of the neat things about Eve was that even a new player could get out there and play a role in PvP. But now, a frigate or cruiser in a high-end 0.0 fight is called "lag". I prefer Eve with 100s of ship designs and module choices, all with usefulness for those trained for it. If it takes nerfing to prevent the overemphasis of one ship type, then so be it. It's better for all to have variety in fleet battle composition and strategy.
Titan DDD was the start of mistake that is causing the onset of the "End Game" ships and Capital Ship online by enfeebling everything that can't withstand a couple DDD blasts. I shudder to think of the coming days of a 4 Titan packs with 15 Mom support. To play top end 0.0 warfare, either you are in a Titan, Mom, Carrier or Dread, or you are grinding to get there. Battlecruiser specialist? Why aren't you in a Dread yet? Kaboom.
I am an ex-ECM pilot, ex-NOSDomi pilot, and current fulltime carrier pilot, so let me say: Suck it up fellow 0.0 Elites and accept a challange for the sake of a better game.
-Manas Fulltime carrier pilot, nerf or not
TGRAD info |
|
Elmicker
Black Sea Industries Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 22:04:00 -
[1721]
Originally by: XoPhyte You don't want to ban them from lowsec, there ARE reasons for carriers and motherships to go to low sec. However you may want to limit their firepower in those areas,...
This.
Carriers in lowsec are fine. They're ridiculously vulnerable and have to put their fighters at risk of sentry fire.
Motherships, however, need their EW invulnerability tweaking. Perhaps changing it from an absolute invulnerability to a 10 or 20-point WCS while in lowsec. Same vulnerability to all other EWs as a carrier.
|
Wodanonline
Pringles Inc. STYX.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 22:05:00 -
[1722]
with that response of a ccp member it is finally confirmed they do not play their own game.
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 22:05:00 -
[1723]
Originally by: Malachon Draco
Originally by: Kerfira
Originally by: Malachon Draco ...something needs to be done or otherwise we will end up with 100 carriers vs 100 carriers in a few months time.
And what is wrong with that??? It would be an epic battle, were it not for lag....
Is it really any different than 100 bs vs. 100 bs?
When all is said and done, it's 100 ships vs. 100 ships.
A 100v100 battle between carriers would be very boring, since no-one would die (except a lot of fighters). If any of them wanted to achieve something, they'd need huge support fleets, battleships and down.
Lag is a problem, but first of all, this isn't done because of lag (according to CCP), and secondly lag caused by carriers is not different from lag caused by other ships. When you reach 200+ fighting on grid, the node grinds to a halt anyway....
Well, aside from the server melting due to up to 3000 fighters being assigned in such a fight, nothing I guess
The server melts anyway when there are 200+ on grid fighting.... whether they're in carriers or not doesn't really matter
However, you're right on the spot on what THE big problem of 0.0 warfare is. It's lag, caused by blobs. THAT is the problem CCP should work to fix.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Ailok Konem
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 22:06:00 -
[1724]
Hi, I personally if they start messing around like setups too much and start nerfing everything then the game will be any interest to ppl and players will start to leave like star wars galaxies online did.
Also if carriers are nurfed then there's no point in having them if ur too busy controlling and delegating ur drones when ppl fly off or die, I rather get myself a titan and blow everyone up in the vicinity, But hey if the carriers get nerfed and everyone starts using titans maybe the dev's could nerf the titans to one big fat laser that only works with if ur ganged. And while u'r at it CCP u might as well disable the super weapon.:) I could see the titans being nerfed in the future after the carriers when no one uses them.
Just my opion, at this rate I doubt anyone will remain an interest in the game if everythings getting nerfed.
|
Matthew
Caldari BloodStar Technologies
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 22:06:00 -
[1725]
Originally by: ER0X A Solo Carrier can kill a few BS before it dies in battle with its damage out put as is. I think this in terms of balance is a fair trade.
Fair enough, I hadn't appreciated it needed it's full fighter output to achieve that.
Of course, one thing we've not seen is how these proposals will tie into the bandwidth proposals for drones in general. Specifically how fighters bandwidth is to be balanced with normal drones.
How about we relax the number-of-drones limit, and give carriers sufficient bandwidth to be able to use heavy drones as their solo defence? What sort of number of drones would we be talking there? The bandwidth usage of fighters is then tuned so that solo, the carrier is less effective with them than with heavies, but with support to bolster it's number of active fighters, it far exceeds it's solo ability?
Maybe not workable, but an idea.
The other idea would be to make them sacrifice something to run their full fighter set solo, some sort of mini-logistics mode (with no fuel or movement restrictions) that allowed you to select the extra fighters bonus, or the remote repping bonus, but not both at the same time. If you chose to activate the remote repping bonus, you would have the option of farming out the fighters to your support ships to get back up to full usage. If you're caught solo, the remote repping bonuses aren't going to help you anyway, so it's no loss to turn those off to give yourself a fighting chance with a full wing of fighters. If you're in a fleet full of carriers, you're going to have to sacrifice one or the other, at least partially mitigating the massive-spider-tank-with-hundreds-of-fighters syndrome. And if you're in a mixed fleet with support that you can farm the extra fighters out to (or "bind" in to boost your control limit as per my earlier suggestion to avoid the micro-management of delegation), you get to use both and realize the advantage of the mixed fleet.
Again, just an idea.
Originally by: ER0X To recap what we have here is two capital class ships one ordinary capital ship the other a super capital ship. Both will have the same solo damage out put as the other. There is no consistency here from the established ship hierarchy. There is a clear distinction between a Moa for example and its variant the Eagle. Where as here with this class of ships the proposal will mean there is no real distinction at the base level.
This is definitely one point I can agree on. Whatever limit is imposed on the carrier, the mothership should have a higher one, for all the reasons you've given.
Originally by: ER0X The argument is that these ships become more powerful when inserted in a gang formation. Any number of ships added together in a gang becomes a far more potent combination than one ship alone.
Of course, some ships are better at force multiplication than others, and carrier/motherships are designed specifically to be good at this. And they should be. The problem is that right now they're most effective at multiplying each other, rather than the sort of ships they're really supposed to be supporting., for a whole host of reasons.
My heart isn't set on this method, and if it's not going to work, fine. But I really would like to see some way of making carriers better at boosting non-capital ships than they are at boosting capitals. ------- There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines. |
Soloun
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 22:07:00 -
[1726]
Considering the pure cost diff in training and ships, not to mention fighters, a carrier SHOULD rip a BS to pieces 1v1. If you plan to balance it perhaps reduce max number of active fighters, perhaps, but not back to 5. Thats a good way to unbalance things.
|
UPS Truck
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 22:07:00 -
[1727]
Originally by: Manas
Suck it up fellow 0.0 Elites and accept a challange for the sake of a better game.
Destroying carriers won't make EVE a better game. Carriers/fighters/drones are being used as a scapegoat to blame for lag.
|
touchvill
D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 22:08:00 -
[1728]
I don't fly carriers, however I am very supportive of these pilots who are getting the last year of their training being nullified to nothigness.
Look at this.
BoB has killed 170 carriers and lost 40 (210 carriers dead) 5 Mothership killed and lost 1 (6 Motherships dead)
Razor Alliance has killed 89 carriers and lost 13 (102 carriers dead)and killed 1 mothership and lost 1 too (2 motherships dead)
Morsus Mihi has killed 67 carriers and lost 37 (104 carriers dead) and lost 1 mothership (1 mothership dead)
Tri have killed 115 carriers and lost 7 carriers (122 carriers dead) and 1 Mothership killed (1 Mothership dead)
That's just the first 4 alliances which came into my head, I could also have used, Goons, AAA, RA who also kill a lot of capitals. Look at the sheer ammount of carriers and motherships dying. They are very killable as seen, they serve a great purpose and have evolutionised fighting. Why mess with them, they are used they are lost and they can be the difference between making an ordinary battle an epic battle.
I don't ever intend to get a capital ship, I certainly don't see them as I win buttons. Anyone who does should maybe stop 1v1 with them whilst flying a thorax. ----------
I once had a pic for a sig, but I ate it! |
Ailok Konem
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 22:11:00 -
[1729]
I also agree to Avos Sova, make more ships , give players the option to select a ship that will neutralise a carrier and its fighters, without nerfing a carrier. More fun that and less disapoinment even if the new ships are t1 still it gets the cap ship pilots thinking...
Gosh.... i got to get myself a signature.
|
Blood Ghost
Occam's Razor Combine
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 22:11:00 -
[1730]
Claiming Post 2000!
Why have capital ships been chosen to be changed? IÆd consider them to be the least important thing on mind when compared to lag, blobs and useless ships types (bombers anyone)?
|
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 22:12:00 -
[1731]
I wonder where all the ISK people spend on carrier skills and ships will go when carriers/motherships are removed from the game?
What happens to the economy when first of all a major ISK sink is removed (skills), and secondly a huge mineral sink is removed (ships).
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Ailok Konem
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 22:12:00 -
[1732]
Originally by: Avos Sova It's getting near 2k posts in under 2 days time, I wager CCP hasn't had time to decide on a proper response since this was more on an introduction to a new dev more then anything else.
I would suggest that instead of making game breaking sweeping changes to ships you instead introduce more ships, ships designed to fit those roles. Everyone loves more options even if noone uses them. Adding more ships would be seen as a positive thing instead of invalidating all the time people put into the ships they are currently using.
I agree ..see prev post
|
George K'ntara
Gallente PALE RIDERS REBORN
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 22:12:00 -
[1733]
I am not a 0.0 pilot or player at this time, but I don't think this idea is a good one. I eventually want this character to fly a carrier or mothership and I want the benefits that those ships currently have to be there in a couple years when I get the isk and skills to be flying one.
Couple of points could someone from CCP more clearly and in a really detailed fashion explain what they think the problem is and what role they originally intended for carriers and MOMs and why they think its broken now.
If fighters are overpowered why not nerf them and also make there building costs lower?
Shouldn't you wait till after the drone changes come out in November to see what effect that has on balance and fix the desync issue's first before radically altering the role of a class of ships?
|
Nebrin
Solstice Systems Development Concourse
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 22:13:00 -
[1734]
Tell me the value of spending a billion isk on a carrier, let alone 30 billion isk on a mothership when you can only control up to 5 drones? Its rubbish, you put the time and cash into a big ship like that to add some serious firepower to a fleet battle. Even then, most Battleships can tank a carrier. So should you limit the firepower a battleship can field because people in cruisers get killed and have no chance? The logic behind this change is non-existant.
You train out of cruisers into BS's because you want a bigger, more powerful ship. Same reason why you train into Capital ships, to have bigger and more powerful ships. Remember, your spending about 10x the cash of a BS to get your carrier, let alone the billion isk to get all the skillbooks to get into it.
|
Keav
Spitfire Inc
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 22:13:00 -
[1735]
Originally by: Avos Sova I would suggest that instead of making game breaking sweeping changes to ships you instead introduce more ships, ships designed to fit those roles. Everyone loves more options even if noone uses them. Adding more ships would be seen as a positive thing instead of invalidating all the time people put into the ships they are currently using.
Sorry Avos, but I think there are plenty of ships already and there are even more coming with Trinity II, I don't think that's the answer to the current state of play.
I don't think anyone will disagree that lag is the biggest issue at the moment, but after that I would rather see the eve universe fleshed out a bit rather than just constantly throwing more ships into the mix, especially if done without enough thought.
I agree with you about not making sweeping changes though. I strongly dislike ships being altered once they are in the game, the test server is for getting the balance right, I despise even minor changes once a ship is in game and people have learnt to fly/fit it a certain way.
My 2 isks worth.
|
Valea
Wrath Of Khaine
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 22:23:00 -
[1736]
Originally by: Vandalias
Carriers have value other than the ammount of damage they can bring to the field.
They had better, since they only do as much damage as a gank fitted battleship right now, and with 5 heavy drones we are looking at about as much as a gank fitted ferox.
|
Xilimyth Derlin
OldBastardsPub SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 22:25:00 -
[1737]
Originally by: XoPhyte
Originally by: Xilimyth Derlin A RL friend just brought this up....
What are the chances that 'ok, fighters get dropped to 5 per carrier non-delegated'.... BUT the carrier gets bandwidth to launch defensive drones in addition to the fighters?
Again, after a year of solid training and billions in isk why should a carrier be nerfed to less DPS then a battleship?
I'm not saying I advocate it... just bringing up outside ideas. Heck that was my entire point in a previous post I should've included in that response O-o. (Relating to a non-delegated fighter bonus for the carrier itself bringing the dps back beyond 1000)
|
Capital Commander
The Capitals' Club
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 22:27:00 -
[1738]
Lots of wasted effort... A small or mid-sized Corp has bought SB's, put 8 months training to be able to field some firepower. If Capital ships weren't 15 - 20 x more expensive than BS's, that might be fair; Then you might want, to rebalance the game, reduce skillpoints to those who have more than 35 mil, make Veldspar the same value as Morphite. In that case you'd see more whining that you see now; but that would for sure make a "rebalance". It would just hit more players. (which would be fair)
|
War Bear
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 22:29:00 -
[1739]
Originally by: CCP Eris Discordia
Originally by: Sin mez
Do you even play the game? And talking about bias like that when it's pretty obvious you're full of it is disgraceful. What are you thinking? Do you even understand your own playerbase, or for that matter your own game? If one would look at the dev comments without bias they would realize the devs have lost touch in a big way.
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.
You can take one for the team if you want but don't pretend that you have any right to speak for the majority of carrier pilots out there. This thread alone speaks volumes against "the greater good" bs idea being spewed out by an ex QA guy. Between the costs of the ships themselves and the costs of time\isk training for them you're going to have some seriously unhappy players so don't expect them to bend over and just take it up the tail pipe. This isn't about some imaginary "in win" button as you put it. It's about buying a product, using it for a while and then having it taken away or changed for something inferior while being told "sorry but /gofuk".
I like Eve. I like CCP. I swear though that for every one thing they do really well they seem to come out with some utter crap to balance it out.
Everything is funny with the Benny Hill theme song |
Crystal Starbreeze
The Ankou The Reckoning.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 22:29:00 -
[1740]
Edited by: Crystal Starbreeze on 22/10/2007 22:30:15 I'm going to try and put a useful comment however i fear that the devs will probably not even see it as it will be buried amongst 65+ pages of justifiable complaints on this proposed nerf.
Here is the crux of the issue. People took alot of time and money to fly a captial ships expecting their investment to pay off. This nerf is, well, seriously screwed up.
What is the initial investment in time and money. Using eve-mon, a new character with +4 implants and all the skills you SHOULD HAVE to effectively use a carrier/motheship and survive in front line battle, you are looking at a minimum investment of around:
Carrier: 452 days (1 year 3 months give or take) of training. Total cost for ship and skills add up to around 2.5 billion isk for your first carrier, skills, proper tech 2 equipment and capital mods, fighters, drones, etc.
Mothership: 640 days of training (1 year 9 months give or take). Total cost for ship and skills is easily 35 billion isk plus if you aren't a noob and equip officer mods on such an expensive ship as you should. Hell i think the real cost is probably closer to 50 billion isk as was said somewhere in this thread.
Skills times may vary and my estimates are what I feel are necessary to fly a armor tanked carrier after some experience in carriers. Some skills are useful for other ships but mind you i have no offensive weapon skills (other than drones and the base skills given at character creation)
I would love someone to explain why the above investment in both time and money does not make it worthy of killing battleships. IS the time and money worth a ship delegated to POS hugging defense, not offensive in anyway. I dont know the figures but i would estimate half the population had capital ship dreams and is eithr there already, close to it, or making their way there. By nerfing this you affect a large portion of the population making a ship worthless in the "real world" of EVE. A nerf of this magnitude would make the above investment worthless.
I agree with people that this nerf would make a carrier nothing but an large dominix. In fact a dominix would probably out dps the carrier and is more viable for armor repping support due to the carrier lock times. Delegation of fighters will not work except in planned circumstances like defense. No longer will you see Carriers jumping offensively or "on the front lines" as CCP wants.
I hope this makes it a little more clear why this Idea is very very bad and should just be filed in the circular recycler. In fact even proposing such a nerf has made me lose a little more respect for the developers. The path they have taken as of late, does not improve the game, rather make it more and more undesirable to play. Dont make the same mistake Sony did with SWG, please.
CCP listen to your users and DO NOT implement such a nerf.
I stole this image because it was fitting, Sorry!
|
|
Valea
Wrath Of Khaine
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 22:30:00 -
[1741]
Constructive Idea: Take away the carrier's fighter damage bonus for all deployed fighters after 5, carriers retain the ability to field up to 15 fighters at reduced damage, or 15 drones at no penalty.
I am a sweaty nerd in a carrier, and I would be willing to live with this compromise. Not that I would fly without support anyway.
|
Jenna Trueman
Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 22:30:00 -
[1742]
"What's being considered?" Lets just hope it stays there.
|
Grainsalt
Free Corp
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 22:32:00 -
[1743]
Originally by: touchvill I don't fly carriers, however I am very supportive of these pilots who are getting the last year of their training being nullified to nothigness.
Look at this.
BoB has killed 170 carriers and lost 40 (210 carriers dead) 5 Mothership killed and lost 1 (6 Motherships dead)
Razor Alliance has killed 89 carriers and lost 13 (102 carriers dead)and killed 1 mothership and lost 1 too (2 motherships dead)
Morsus Mihi has killed 67 carriers and lost 37 (104 carriers dead) and lost 1 mothership (1 mothership dead)
Tri have killed 115 carriers and lost 7 carriers (122 carriers dead) and 1 Mothership killed (1 Mothership dead)
That's just the first 4 alliances which came into my head, I could also have used, Goons, AAA, RA who also kill a lot of capitals. Look at the sheer ammount of carriers and motherships dying. They are very killable as seen, they serve a great purpose and have evolutionised fighting. Why mess with them, they are used they are lost and they can be the difference between making an ordinary battle an epic battle.
I don't ever intend to get a capital ship, I certainly don't see them as I win buttons. Anyone who does should maybe stop 1v1 with them whilst flying a thorax.
This speaks volumes...
Don't tell us you are nerfing something without good cause... There is intent in the dev post, but no reason apart from a few numpties whining away becuase they got gate camped...
Anyone who flys a carrier in 0.4 is fekked by this nerf (you know why).. I fly with a support gang anyway who would love to have fighters assigned, but in REALITY (that funny thing we all play in this game).. It is not feasable as the rest of the game does not support increased complexity when it comes to drones (fighters)... Seriously, CCP get your head screwed on right before you make dumb suggestions like this.
And if you really want to nerf something (which it is).. at least give a boost at the same time.. Carriers are horrificly easy to kill solo.. That is not the issue here.. Making a ship that is easy to kill, then introducing a useless "triage" module and then spanking us further is just beyond a joke. ---
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=554257
|
Sir JoJo
Minmatar Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 22:33:00 -
[1744]
time to wake up and maybe respond CCP i know there much hate in this thread but theres also alot of nice ideas in it,
68 pages and no real respond to the horror and shockwaves u send trough the entire community?
|
Carcusian
D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 22:34:00 -
[1745]
worst idea. ever. period.
There is nothing in carriers and moms that requires CCP to step in and "balance" anything other than, maybe, the ewar immunity of moms that fly empire side. After all, titans cant use their DDD in empire, no reason moms couldnt be tweaked similarly. but i dont fly a mom so i dont know.
On a technical level, making it so a carrier caught offguard cannot effectively put out more dps than a freakin BC is dumb dumb dumb. Not to mention the fact that you want it to be more "logistics" but immediately limit the number of shield and armor bots you can put out.
"Balancing" a carrier or mom simply requires good tactics. Both can be neutralized VERY effectively, even with small gangs. So long you know what you are doing.
I guess thats my beef with this lame idea, that is clearly from a QA guy and not a more seasoned game designer/dev. Eve is attractive precisely because you have to use your damn head to succeed. And this nerf, and thats what it is, removes the need for newer or fledgling players to have to use their noggin. LAME. I'm all for making life a bit easier to atract a newer playerbase, but do you really need to hand them easyness on a platter? You've already started them with more skillpoints, and reduced prerequ's for advanced skills.
Look, as with any changes in Eve, we would all adapt-or-die/quit/threaten to quit. CCP has a vision for how they want the game to be played, and are not shy about tweaking stats and ships that cross the line into being overpowered or near exploits of sorts. But this isnt about balancing something thats overpowered, its about taking a class of ship that costs TONS of time and isk to train for, fit, buy, fly... and making it easier for players without a "desire to learn" to be able to kill them. Not to mention the fact that of ALL the freakin ships/things in Eve that require tweaking and are more accessible to the playerbase, why start with this one...
|
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 22:38:00 -
[1746]
Edited by: XoPhyte on 22/10/2007 22:39:01
Originally by: Jenna Trueman "What's being considered?" Lets just hope it stays there.
Hopefully it goes beyond this. Hopefully CCP realizes that perhaps they are losing touch with the playerbase and take action to rectify the problem. Or perhaps they will communicate more effectively next time and let us know the root problem they are trying to address rather then giving us bits and pieces of information.
Get more developers back to playing Eve tbh.
|
Daliyn
Minmatar Real Enterprises Nex Super Vos
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 22:39:00 -
[1747]
Why change something that doesn't need changing? Shouldn't we be allowed to use the ships that we have poured our time and effort into obtaining, in any way we see fit? If that means sitting at a gate camp, or mining in an asteroid belt, or taking part in major fleet ops and actually dealing some damage. It may not fit your perceived use for the ship when the idea for them was originally conceived, but it is no less a valid role if that is what the person wants to do with it.
Carriers are still used in a support role along with all those other instances, so why limit the pilot to just one option just because, in your opinion, that is the only thing that you think carriers should be used for?
This proposed nerf fixes nothing and takes away a lot, as well as possibly increasing server load and just making the carrier/ms pilot's life harder than it already is.
|
Bren MacKay
Veto. Academy Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 22:39:00 -
[1748]
Edited by: Bren MacKay on 22/10/2007 22:42:18 Not a good idea, and if it is just an "idea" horrible way to put it forwards and freak everybody and their Mom (awsome pun I'm sorry ) out.
In my Opinion:
Instead of nerfing carriers and moms into oblivion and ****ing loads of people off (omg! Bob and goons agreeing on somthing ). Dreads should be boosted dramatically, ie a large bonus to damage, say 50% (possibly even more) per level, and tracking, say another 50% per level while attacking capital sized ships.
At the same time, carrier "spider tanking" should be nerfed somewhat. Somthing along the lines of a limit of how many remote repairs/shield boosters on a ship.
This would cement the dread as an anti capital ship (along with boring pos sieging), not to mention cementing Fleet Battlships back into fleet combat to kill them, and allow groups of them to obliterate a larger carrier blob. However since dreads still have terrible tracking against targets smaller than capitals and cannot spider tank they are very vunerable to a conventional battleship gang.
This way carrier blob > bs bloob (kinda anyways, carriers wont do much to bs at sniping ranges) dreadnaughts > carrier blob and bs bloob > dreadnaught blob.
Carriers arnt actually broken or overpowered on their own (Carriers = solopwnmobiles? you've got to be kidding), its the carrier blob that is. (Moms need their E-war invuln to be taken away in lowsec though) and if it ain't broke dont fix(break) it.
Carrot > Stick (in this problem at least imo)
|
Jiks
Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 22:41:00 -
[1749]
Sorry,
This is a very poorly thought out idea.
Firstly, there are many situations where through no fault of their own the CV/MS will be temporarily alone or out of gang or lagged out. i.e. CTD's, intermediate jumps plus as already stated by others.
Plus as stated in the very first response if fighter control needs to be returned to the carrier how can that possibly work? I also have a fundamental problem with the idea that a capital ship should be unable to defend itself or even kill a single BS/BC. This seems illogical at best.
Lastly, this will not address a real problem, lag in fleet fights, if anything it will make thinks worse while we all fight with the delegation system instead of the enemy.
I feel sorry for Zulu as whatever else he does we will all remember him as the messenger who triggered the biggest flame-fest for some time due to the worst ideas to come out of CCP while they have been in a legal state of mind. Ever.
Please, please in the name of God leave Brit ... urr capital pilots alone!!!
Jiks
|
Dioh Kado
Galactic Fighter Syndicate Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 22:47:00 -
[1750]
Originally by: Crystal Starbreeze Dont make the same mistake Sony did with SWG, please. CCP listen to your users and DO NOT implement such a nerf.
/signed
I came to EVE, because Sony has patched SWG to death. I like EVE ... but some of the Dev-Blocks gave me a very bad feeling
|
|
Refazed
The Silent Rage
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 22:50:00 -
[1751]
Originally by: Valea Constructive Idea: Take away the carrier's fighter damage bonus for all deployed fighters after 5, carriers retain the ability to field up to 15 fighters at reduced damage, or 15 drones at no penalty.
I am a sweaty nerd in a carrier, and I would be willing to live with this compromise. Not that I would fly without support anyway.
that would be a heavy nerf to gallente carriers. but pointless on the rest.
why dont we just do this: leave carriers and moms alone.
|
marshal123
Wreckless Abandon Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 22:52:00 -
[1752]
I vote no to cap nerf!
and yes to firing the guy that thought this up
|
Attack Dog
Caldari Terran Robotics Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 22:53:00 -
[1753]
ccp if u were looking to make a improvment to enrich the game then heres a 10 second clip for u
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrjwaqZfjIY
------sig starts here------ Don't be a noob, stop whinning 4 nerf's 2day |
Shadow XII
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 22:54:00 -
[1754]
So what he's suggesting is not nerfing the current system, but making it a lot less efficient, making the same process take unnessecarily longer.
You're kidding.
|
Almarin Enchura
Serenity Inc
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 22:57:00 -
[1755]
Originally by: Acacia Everto How about we give all capitals EWAR immunity? Wait, before you scream at me, hear me out.
EWAR immunity would require support craft with capital sensor linking modules, which each allow a capital to lock, and prevent the capital from losing sensor resolution/range. In this way, a capital would need support to continue to be effective, but if they lost this support they could still defend themselves, but are able to be jammed/damped and what not. Perhaps for each module your carrier/mothership would have a stronger lock, until a certain number when they would have full EWAR immunity. A mothership would obviously require more of these modules.
This makes people much more inclined to bring along support with this Capital Sensor Linking Arrays.
So, in short. All capitals get the POSSIBILITY of EWAR immunity. By default, on their own, they do not. But, with support using Capital Sensor Linking Arrays on them each adds a certain strength to the capital's sensors (and perhaps the ship's own slightly, to prevent easy jamming) until after say, 4-5 for a carrier it gains EWAR immunity. For a mothership, it would be more than a carrier. This ensures capitals aren't running without support and gives a new goal to gangs: to down the support, then you can then hold down the capital and destroy it.
It ensures capitals will be used more with fleets (not alts), without nerfing a capital's ability to defend its self. Isn't this what you intended? To make it necessary to work together to field a capital effectively?
This would make Carriers/Motherships much more dependent on their gangs, and also provide an incentive to gang up rather than fly it solo. One of the more frequent whines I hear from Carrier pilots is a Maulus can turn them off with a set of damps. This would certainly help the situation and make it need teamwork to effectively field a Carrier.
|
Furos
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 23:01:00 -
[1756]
I feel this change is a very poor idea. This change would basically make carriers/moms just as combat effective as a battleship with a really good tank.
Capitals are and should be more powerful than other ship types, otherwise why should we spend hundreds of days training and billions of isk to get one??!!
Capital ships are defined as warships with the heaviest firepower and armor If they are going to be just like any other ship then they really aren't capitals anymore. Maybe we should call them cargo ships
|
Vampir3 Un3xist
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 23:08:00 -
[1757]
Edited by: Vampir3 Un3xist on 22/10/2007 23:10:10 Please CCP don't nerf carriers we have spend too many times to skill them.
If you made this nerf carrier pilot will probably use alt for delegating fighters and bypass your stupid nerf ! so this nerf is useless !
|
Amuko
Amarr Happy Little Roid Huggers
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 23:10:00 -
[1758]
I like it.
|
Tishlaff
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 23:10:00 -
[1759]
About the point of Carriers replacing Battleships.
If CCP is going to start making references to Carriers requiring battle groups and so forth to operate, then it just makes sence to do away with battleships all together I mean the rest of the world did. The United States decommisioned all of its battleship class vesels in the last couple of years. So lets not make this a "lets compare naval vessels in the real world to our internet spaceships" kind of thing. If you wanted to do that all you would have to say is the carrier DID replace the Battleship. For the simple reason of point defence. The fact that a carrier could defend itself agaist Torpedo Planes, Guided Missles and so forth. As where a Battleship was not able to do this.
As it stands now with all level 5 skills and 15 fighters out a carrier does just shy of 1900 dps. And like nearly every other ship class is affected by EW. Now this isn't taking into account MOM's but that is an entirely different aspect of fighters, that needs to be addressed seperately without bluring the line of MOM's and Carriers too much. Thats relatively close to the dps of 2 Battleships. And with your own armor reppers going you can rep right around 1400 dps, with Capital Armor Reps. Now this isn't taking into account resists and so forth but you can see where a carrier is easily taken down when put against several battleships. Now this is where it gets interesting. Once again 1400 dps tank 2 capital reps, and this is right around the base of 1 captital remote armor rep. To reiterate 2 capital reps 1400 rep amout, 1 capital remote rep 1500 rep amout. The problem with Carrier and MOM's isn't the amout of fighters it can put out. Its the spider tank. As most people have said, the real issue CCP would have is that how do you lower the spider tank, and keep the ship good at a support role. That is where they should take the nerf bat. But then again how often do you see only 1 carrier in a battle group?
|
Wyliee
Taurus Inc
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 23:12:00 -
[1760]
i like it!
however is there a limit to the system sec that you can assign drones in?
|
|
Liam Liam
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 23:12:00 -
[1761]
Wow nerf city ... c'mon devs get some imagination stop reaching for the nerf bat.
If carriers and other capitals are too powerful ( not that I think they are ) let cov ops type ships torpedo them with attacks like submarines do with real carriers. Let destroyers be the only ships that can detect and kill these torpedo cloakers... means that capitals will travel with 2-3 destroyers like they do in real life ( might also make destroyers useful again ). And let the destroyers dock in the carrier to jump.
If you have to change carriers change for the better not a nerf...
How about double yes double the damage a fighter can do and double it's tank as well. The first 5 fighters ( squadron )is the combat air patrol controlled from the carrier There are 3 other squadrons they have to be controlled by other players who dock in the carrier and fly with their own squadron of fighters.
So a carrier becomes a four man capital, the players of course own their squadron of fighters so if they lose them the carrier pilot doesn't cry ( well not too hard ). But if they're popped the squadron leaders respawn in the carrier and can take out another squad if they have one to spare. But if the carriers popped their spares go with it...( a little incentive to keep the carrier safe and not go chasing kill mails )
So your 6 battleships may well get owned by a carrier but the carrier used 4 people to do it. Also let the squadrons outfit their fighters for variety either different types of fighters or a couple of module slots in each fighter.
Carriers will no longer be solo pwn mobiles ( which I take it is your problem ) but will be team pwn mobiles not shadows of their former selves. ( It also solves fighter AI problems by replacing it with players )
Sign me up for a squadron captian ; P
|
0R1NOCO
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 23:14:00 -
[1762]
Edited by: 0R1NOCO on 22/10/2007 23:15:13
Originally by: Tishlaff The problem with Carrier and MOM's isn't the amout of fighters it can put out. Its the spider tank.
Isn't that hilarious, though? The real problem here is the "intended" use of the carriers, the logistics role.
Also, the guy above me has incredibly good ideas. Listen to him.
|
Xilimyth Derlin
OldBastardsPub SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 23:15:00 -
[1763]
Originally by: Amuko I like it.
Originally by: Wyliee i like it!
however is there a limit to the system sec that you can assign drones in?
Why though? Not to sound 'mean' but "I like it" without justification is no more constructive then some of the flames going around.
Personally, I think it's a good direction, but they NEED to keep the carrier's defensive damage capability close to where it is if they do (be it a damage boost for directly commanded fighters or what not) or it'll have the potential to grossly cripple the ship.
|
Megadon
Caldari Deathshead Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 23:15:00 -
[1764]
You know Wrangler, this kind of thing is what I was talking about when I suggested that CCP was hiring people from Electronic Arts.
Electronic Arts wouldn't know asymmetric game play if it hit them in the forehead and to balance a game around asymmetric game play is simply beyond them because they are not sophisticated enough to grasp it.
or... they don't think their audience is sophisticated enough to grasp it.
Eve is slowly but surely turning into a simple rock-paper-scissors game, which if you've ever taken game theory, is NOT necessarily the same as asymmetric game design.
Personally, imo, this trend is ruining Eve.
I'm not against balancing supercapitals.
But I don't think nerfing individual gameplay is the best solution to this problem. That's like throwing the baby out with the bath water.
The last nerf you guys came up with for these ships I thought was a brilliant and clever solution to a sticky problem; i.e., the triage mode stuff.
You guys can do better than the proposed solution on the table. --------------
|
Acacia Everto
Wings of Redemption Black Flag Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 23:20:00 -
[1765]
Originally by: Amuko I like it.
Originally by: Wyliee i like it!
however is there a limit to the system sec that you can assign drones in?
1) This sounds like two alts. 2) "is there a limit to the system sec" In general? If you don't know, you shouldn't be in this thread spouting off a positive response to a bad idea when you have no idea about the problems and mechanics behind it.
|
Reptzo
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 23:21:00 -
[1766]
Originally by: Wyliee i like it!
however is there a limit to the system sec that you can assign drones in?
Why do you like it???
And yes, .3 and lower, in .4 you cant assign drones.
|
Xeseldddim
Amarr Eve Corporation 16293456
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 23:27:00 -
[1767]
excuse me for bringing up the obvious but wont HEAT fix this issue?
|
Price Watcher
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 23:29:00 -
[1768]
Total FAIL. Stupid idea.
Stop fixing things that are not broken. There are plenty of bugs to fix. Work on those.
POST WITH YOUR ALT!
The Shame o' The Galaxy |
Elmicker
Black Sea Industries Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 23:29:00 -
[1769]
Originally by: Xeseldddim excuse me for bringing up the obvious but wont HEAT fix this issue?
10/10.
|
Mos7Wan7ed
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 23:34:00 -
[1770]
Edited by: Mos7Wan7ed on 22/10/2007 23:35:19 5 fighters? a well setup BS or CS could tank the 5 fighters.. not only that but the fighters are going to be assigned to BS that already likely have heavy drones in their bay, ie not really increasing the DPS all that much. so the carrier turns into a boat that brings drones to the fight but cant pvp directly. if it cant pvp effectively then it isn't going to be in the line of fire. if its not in the line of fire with the rest of the gang then it ins't supporting the fleet.
your new fubar mom/carrier sits on the edge of the POS bubble doing nothing but staring at his drone/fighters in the overview and maybe repairs ships if and when they return.
|
|
Rusty PwnStar
Rampage Eternal Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 23:37:00 -
[1771]
Originally by: Xeseldddim excuse me for bringing up the obvious but wont HEAT fix this issue?
Regards Rusty
|
Elmicker
Black Sea Industries Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 23:37:00 -
[1772]
Originally by: Mos7Wan7ed 5 fighters? a well setup BS or CS could tank the 5 fighters..
A well setup BS or CS can tank 12 fighters, if necessary.
|
Sacul
Wreckless Abandon Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 23:41:00 -
[1773]
Originally by: Elmicker
Originally by: Mos7Wan7ed 5 fighters? a well setup BS or CS could tank the 5 fighters..
A well setup BS or CS can tank 12 fighters, if necessary.
yup. 20 by a mom will shred u tho. but a solo carrier and a mean tank on the bs can indeed be done.
Boo! to this nerf aswell. bad thinking ccp ...bad
The stone age didn't end because we ran out of stones!
|
Acacia Everto
Wings of Redemption Black Flag Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 23:42:00 -
[1774]
Originally by: Elmicker
Originally by: Mos7Wan7ed 5 fighters? a well setup BS or CS could tank the 5 fighters..
A well setup BS or CS can tank 12 fighters, if necessary.
I've seen a well setup CS tank the fighters from 2 Carriers and a Myrmidon no sweat. Don't tell me Carriers have too much DPS.
|
Transcendant One
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 23:43:00 -
[1775]
Edited by: Transcendant One on 22/10/2007 23:43:48 Stupidest "fix" ever proposed.
|
SamuraiJack
Caldari Celestial Horizon Corp. Valainaloce
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 23:43:00 -
[1776]
Change the damn bong water...
Are you just going to consistantly **** off the playerbase and ruin a good game?
i seriously wonder sometimes...
Btw, I wont be playing your crap Vampire game incase u are driving ppl there.
SJ. CLS CEO, Valainloce Executor and Standings Director =-
|
The Racketeer
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 23:43:00 -
[1777]
Edited by: The Racketeer on 22/10/2007 23:44:13 all i hear from people that like the idea is that.. they are the kinda people getting ganked or killed in low sec buy them. they think somehow if stopping carriers and moms from launching so many fighters that all low sec ganks will stop. its kinda silly and vaguely pathetic.
|
Rusty PwnStar
Rampage Eternal Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 23:44:00 -
[1778]
Originally by: Sacul
Originally by: Elmicker
Originally by: Mos7Wan7ed 5 fighters? a well setup BS or CS could tank the 5 fighters..
A well setup BS or CS can tank 12 fighters, if necessary.
yup. 20 by a mom will shred u tho. but a solo carrier and a mean tank on the bs can indeed be done.
Boo! to this nerf aswell. bad thinking ccp ...bad
But but but the dev said 0.2 seconds, surely a dev knows what he's talking about.
Oh wait....
Regards Rusty
|
elohllird
Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 23:45:00 -
[1779]
WTF ive just been skilling my alt for a year for carrier use...
If this goes ahead i would like a year's worth of skill points back, and a couple of bil, k thnx bye
ps. i thought Verone was cool but now i dont, can i have thinkin Verone was cool removed from my memory. ta
|
Sean Drake
Caldari Dirty Deeds Corp. Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 23:47:00 -
[1780]
Hmmm I see this threads still here that makes me a sad bunny
If Goons AND BoB are agreeing with each other that your idea is stupid, it's probably stupid. |
|
Gridwalker
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 23:49:00 -
[1781]
Wow, the devs at CCP sure know how to haze the new guy! Was there snickering from your coworkers as they led you to the keyboard to type out your first dev blog, or were they able to keep a straight face? ;-)
-Grid
|
The Tumaril
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 23:49:00 -
[1782]
I haven't posted on these forums in a long time but this idea is not a good one. If you want people to actually use carriers and MS, then you're going about it the wrong way. People want to actually use their ships to fight, what this nerf would do would be to make flying a carrier the most boring job ever. I'd never even bother training for carriers or MS if all they get to do is sit around repping pos shields and maybe assign fighters every now and then.
Just think of how useless it would be in fleet fights, takes friggin ages to lock anything as is, now the fighters are being wielded by not just one lagged out carrier pilots, but by 3 lagged our support pilots. Chances are, at least 1 of those 3 will never even load the screen in a major fleet fight thus rendering 1/3 of the carrier's firepower useless. This nerf would put the final notch on the MS tombstone, you'd just be turning MS and Carriers into logistics ships, just like the Titan. Quit killin off all the fun for cap pilots, if they're willing to risk a 2-50bil isk ship, they should be able to fly it into combat and actually get some use out of the damn thing. For the love of god, don't go through with this nerf!! Sig removed. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] |
Icome4u
Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 23:49:00 -
[1783]
UBER FAILED
Man i'm going to be **** (and so will others) if anything like this happens...
|
Vandalias
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 23:52:00 -
[1784]
Originally by: elohllird WTF ive just been skilling my alt for a year for carrier use...
If this goes ahead i would like a year's worth of skill points back, and a couple of bil, k thnx bye
You'd think people would figure out by now that training for the flavor of the month never works out in the end.
|
UPS Truck
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 23:53:00 -
[1785]
Originally by: Vandalias
Originally by: elohllird WTF ive just been skilling my alt for a year for carrier use...
If this goes ahead i would like a year's worth of skill points back, and a couple of bil, k thnx bye
You'd think people would figure out by now that training for the flavor of the month never works out in the end.
How is a solid combat ship that doesn't appear overpowered to most people a 'flavor of the month'?
|
Wyliee
Taurus Inc
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 23:53:00 -
[1786]
Originally by: Xilimyth Derlin
Originally by: Amuko I like it.
Originally by: Wyliee i like it!
however is there a limit to the system sec that you can assign drones in?
Why though? Not to sound 'mean' but "I like it" without justification is no more constructive then some of the flames going around.
Personally, I think it's a good direction, but they NEED to keep the carrier's defensive damage capability close to where it is if they do (be it a damage boost for directly commanded fighters or what not) or it'll have the potential to grossly cripple the ship.
oO i like it because, anything that wil stop people dropping a solo carrier + cyno ship on another single pilot is a good direction.
capships are there for support, in the right gangs they can still put out.
the people that are going to be upset about this are going to be the ones that drop carriers and moms on to lone bs's.
|
Vandalias
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 23:55:00 -
[1787]
Originally by: UPS Truck How is a solid combat ship that doesn't appear overpowered to most people a 'flavor of the month'?
Ask everyone and their mom who created alts specifically to train for it. I'm sure they had some reason. You don't see everyone training for carriers for no reason.
|
Electrafrost
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 23:55:00 -
[1788]
Ok heres my solution, to 1 of 2 problems, first problem being the ability to overwhelm a node with fighters
Change the way soverienty works, Make it so in order to have sov 3 you have to have the surrounding systems with a set amount of pos's, then make it, in order to have sov 4, u have to hold a region in the same fashion, and make the bonuses of sov 4 actually worth having it. To own a station you have to have sov 3, with means many solora systems with soverinety not just 1, witch avoids defending and lagging one system.
This makes it so that you have to mobalize your fleets, and if you want to put 300 fighters in one system, your enermy just goes and attacks your other systems, breaking down your soverinty slowly if you don't mobalize to defend, This helps avoid massive gate camps as well
the other thing is to make it so there is many ways to enter a solor system,
This would help with the lag problem and would allow us carriers to have our fighters, with are by no means over powered with 1200 dps, witch can't even break all tanks, or takes 10 mins to take out a passive drake or myrmidon Now a smart carrier pilot heavily relies on his support fleet, especially against a nano/ fast moving gang.
If you want to make a carrier need a support fleet, even more then it alreaedy does, then change there tanking ability, this is uneccesary but is better then nerfing the damage, witch should infact be increased, considering some bs can do 1400 dps.
The fact a frig can single handedly lock down a carrier with a faction web, is somwhat crazy. 30 km scram avoids a heavy nos.
If you want to demoralize your oldest subscribers to the game, and take away the fancy ability of haveing 10+ fighters/ drones then there is no reason to have a account with over 30 mill skill points, and we might as well scrap carriers for parts
The other option is give carriers guns, but again, i like my fighters, LEAVE EM ALONE. look at other options
|
Acacia Everto
Wings of Redemption Black Flag Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 00:00:00 -
[1789]
Originally by: Wyliee
Originally by: Xilimyth Derlin
Originally by: Amuko I like it.
Originally by: Wyliee i like it!
however is there a limit to the system sec that you can assign drones in?
Why though? Not to sound 'mean' but "I like it" without justification is no more constructive then some of the flames going around.
Personally, I think it's a good direction, but they NEED to keep the carrier's defensive damage capability close to where it is if they do (be it a damage boost for directly commanded fighters or what not) or it'll have the potential to grossly cripple the ship.
oO i like it because, anything that wil stop people dropping a solo carrier + cyno ship on another single pilot is a good direction.
capships are there for support, in the right gangs they can still put out.
the people that are going to be upset about this are going to be the ones that drop carriers and moms on to lone bs's.
No. I wouldn't be dropping a solo carrier on anyone. Is it wrong to want to be able to control my own damn drones though? How about we make it so only three of your guns are user controllable, and make the other three controlled by your gang. And since the Vaga shouldn't be a solopwnmobile either, lets make its MWD gang controllable. After all, it's a gang ship, why should it need to control its own MWD?
|
Rusty PwnStar
Rampage Eternal Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 00:00:00 -
[1790]
Originally by: elohllird
post with your main coward
He's trolling bud, don't rise to it.
Regards Rusty
|
|
jokerb
Caldari THE INQUISITI0N
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 00:00:00 -
[1791]
Originally by: Vandalias
Originally by: UPS Truck How is a solid combat ship that doesn't appear overpowered to most people a 'flavor of the month'?
Ask everyone and their mom who created alts specifically to train for it. I'm sure they had some reason. You don't see everyone training for carriers for no reason.
Please read this: Logical Fallacies Then come back when you stop using them in your rhetoric, thanks :)
|
elohllird
Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 00:02:00 -
[1792]
Originally by: Rusty PwnStar
Originally by: elohllird
post with your main coward
He's trolling bud, don't rise to it.
aye
|
kookookrazyCICHEN
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 00:04:00 -
[1793]
Originally by: The Racketeer Edited by: The Racketeer on 22/10/2007 23:44:13 all i hear from people that like the idea is that.. they are the kinda people getting ganked or killed in low sec buy them. they think somehow if stopping carriers and moms from launching so many fighters that all low sec ganks will stop. its kinda silly and vaguely pathetic.
Well versed.
|
Vandalias
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 00:05:00 -
[1794]
Edited by: Vandalias on 23/10/2007 00:05:50
Originally by: UPS Truck They're useful ships in their current incarnation, that's why.
I bet more than a few trained them up to use them as a jump freighter.
I don't see why popularity means they should be nerfed to oblivion.
Well the jump freighter crowd won't be afffected in the slightest. As far as "useful" thats a pretty broad statement. They will still be "useful" after the change, just not as direct damage dealers. Also, I haven't seen anyone argue that they should be nerfed simply due to their popularity.
I'm also not sure why not being able to directly deal damage to other ships means they instantly become useless relics never to be flown again. Its an adjustment in roles for sure, but they will still be quite useful if flown correctly. However it seems the vast populace can't see beyond DPS figures for some reason.
Originally by: elohllird post with your main coward
Same to you.
Edit: also drop the personal attacks, it doesn't get you anywhere.
|
Surfinal
United Society Starfleet Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 00:05:00 -
[1795]
What we want is pretty basic: We want to make fighter wielding capital ships more reliant on their support fleet and less of a direct nber deathbringer.
Your proposal: Reduce a carrier's ability to deliver damage by 50%.
So a ship that has an excellent tank and at-best BS-gank is going to be an awesome tank with....the firepower of a battlecruiser. So what's the incentive to put your billion-isk ship on the frontlines? None. We're back to POS-hugging. Sure, the carrier could stay frontline and be a harder-to-kill 5-fighter controller, and soak up some EW. Sorry, that doesn't do it for me. Many carrier pilots will simply dock up and pull out their BS, its more useful.
If making the capitals more reliant on the support fleet is your goal, here's a couple of possibilities:
- Go ahead and nerf the carrier's control abilities, but also:
- Give us a capital-sized anti-frigate weapon that SHREDS frigates that get within 20km.
- Allow DCUs to add to the number of direct controlled drones/fighters, so a pilot could control 6 drones with one DCU, for example.
- Make carriers immune to EW, so there is actually an incentive to deploy them outside a POS and still do something.
- Make MoMs immune to interdiction spheres, but not the new cruiser dictor's sphere.
- Keep the carrier and MoM's control abilities as they are.
- Reduce deployed fighter damage by 50%
- Increase deployed fighter damage by 25% for each gang member directly under the carrier pilot's leadership. Have squad commanders count double, so each wing commander and squad commander could receive a full 0.5*2.5=1.25x bonus. Possibly, make it so that only MoMs in WC slots would have SCs count double.
- Give carriers and MoMs flagship bonuses like the field and fleet command ships respectively. Add these in as class bonuses, as I don't think we can afford to take away any of the existing bonuses.
Option 1 attempts to give us some incentive to deploy carriers, while living with your restriction. I don't like it, but I think its at least a decent attempt at balance.
Option 2 is far more interesting to me. We get a carrier that can, in a gang, deal more damage than before. We get a carrier that MUST have gangmates to be effective. Even better, we get an effective limit on carriers in gang, 5 WC+5*5 SC = 30 carriers per gang. To be effective, those 30 carriers need full gangs, so lots and lots of support will have to be employed. Simply adding more carriers to the mix won't help all that much. Also, carriers would be incentivized to fit gang mods.
There, my attempt to both be constructive and civil. Now watch it get lost in this 70 page mess.
|
Raeff
Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 00:05:00 -
[1796]
Edited by: Raeff on 23/10/2007 00:05:50 bad BAD move
leave the ships alone!
if you want to figure out a way to nerf low sec Moms then go right ahead, but this isnt it
<- spent the last year+ working my freakin a*s off getting 2 characters carrier ready and now i hear this...
|
Hells Bells
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 00:06:00 -
[1797]
STILL NO RESPONSE FROM CCP..
Maybe we need to send this thread to that lovely chap who recently advised us that we lost a days gameplay due to hackers..
I did a search for the icelandic translation for "CUSTOMER SERVICE" but apparently they don't have one.
LISTEN TO YOUR PLAYERS AND HAVE THE COURTESY TO RESPOND
|
Icome4u
Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 00:07:00 -
[1798]
Man tbh re-reading all those posts (blah) i see people are just whining about how they are scared of carriers/MS that get cyno on them (tbh those freash cyno ships are freaking easy to kill with 80ish% of their cap gone...).
To make everyone happy: DON'T do this stupid idea. JAM cyno's near gates.
|
Moraguth
Amarr Shiva Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 00:07:00 -
[1799]
Once upon a time, I trained for logistics ships. I thought they'd be cool. I knew what i was getting in to, at that time they didn't have guns. I also knew it would be useful only in select situations. The only time it got use was when we were doing complexes as a group, and someone else went in to tank first, then I could bring my guardian in and make their tank uber. That's pretty much the only thing i've ever used them for as that's pretty much the only way they're useful. Much later on, logistics ships got a boost so they'd be used more. Better resists, a few gun slots added, and the ability to use large logistics modules. As far as I know, they still aren't used that much, except in very specific circumstances.
Then we go to now. I decided to train for carriers. They are still awesome logistics ships, but with a few changes. They're survivable and have decent firepower. I knew what I was getting in to when I made this decision. I knew it'd be expensive and they'd only be useful in specific circumstances.
CCP, you're taking away half my ship :( this is not the way to fix your "problems". Look at my previous posts if you've made it this far and missed it. I give solutions that don't alienate the eve population and insult their intelligence.
Fixes through boosting are MUCH better than "Fixes" by nerfing.
good game |
Xaen
Caldari Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 00:08:00 -
[1800]
Originally by: Xeseldddim excuse me for bringing up the obvious but wont HEAT fix this issue?
If not heat, surely the need for speed will. --
Support fixing the EVE UI
|
|
elohllird
Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 00:10:00 -
[1801]
Originally by: Vandalias Edited by: Vandalias on 23/10/2007 00:05:50
Originally by: UPS Truck They're useful ships in their current incarnation, that's why.
I bet more than a few trained them up to use them as a jump freighter.
I don't see why popularity means they should be nerfed to oblivion.
Well the jump freighter crowd won't be afffected in the slightest. As far as "useful" thats a pretty broad statement. They will still be "useful" after the change, just not as direct damage dealers. Also, I haven't seen anyone argue that they should be nerfed simply due to their popularity.
I'm also not sure why not being able to directly deal damage to other ships means they instantly become useless relics never to be flown again. Its an adjustment in roles for sure, but they will still be quite useful if flown correctly. However it seems the vast populace can't see beyond DPS figures for some reason.
Originally by: elohllird post with your main coward
Same to you.
Edit: also drop the personal attacks, it doesn't get you anywhere.
wasnt trying to get anywhere mate, a personal attack would be on your MAIN character not an alt you made to troll.
|
Wyliee
Taurus Inc
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 00:10:00 -
[1802]
Originally by: Acacia Everto
No. I wouldn't be dropping a solo carrier on anyone. Is it wrong to want to be able to control my own damn drones though? How about we make it so only three of your guns are user controllable, and make the other three controlled by your gang. And since the Vaga shouldn't be a solopwnmobile either, lets make its MWD gang controllable. After all, it's a gang ship, why should it need to control its own MWD?
what is the purpose of capships? if they ment to be a soloWTFpwn all ship then the way they are is great...
little story... i recently jumped into a low sec system in my pilgrim. inside the gate i sat and watched a wyvern ganking ship after ship with 20+ drones..
every ship that came through that gate died, and should a large fleet turn up..all they can hope to do is chase it away, the amount of mom kills in low sec can be counted on one hand.
is that what moms are for..i dont think so.
|
Acacia Everto
Wings of Redemption Black Flag Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 00:11:00 -
[1803]
Edited by: Acacia Everto on 23/10/2007 00:14:26 What we want is pretty basic: We want to make fighter wielding capital ships more reliant on their support fleet and less of a direct nber deathbringer.
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=618279&page=65#1939
I think this solution fits the problem well, but I want some input on it. It sure as hell is better than nerfing a Carrier from being able to control its own drones at any rate.
Originally by: Wyliee
Originally by: Acacia Everto
No. I wouldn't be dropping a solo carrier on anyone. Is it wrong to want to be able to control my own damn drones though? How about we make it so only three of your guns are user controllable, and make the other three controlled by your gang. And since the Vaga shouldn't be a solopwnmobile either, lets make its MWD gang controllable. After all, it's a gang ship, why should it need to control its own MWD?
what is the purpose of capships? if they ment to be a soloWTFpwn all ship then the way they are is great...
little story... i recently jumped into a low sec system in my pilgrim. inside the gate i sat and watched a wyvern ganking ship after ship with 20+ drones..
every ship that came through that gate died, and should a large fleet turn up..all they can hope to do is chase it away, the amount of mom kills in low sec can be counted on one hand.
is that what moms are for..i dont think so.
But, that's a problem with lowsec Moms, not drone control. That's a problem with Moms having absolute immunity to most attacks in lowsec (unless the guy is an idiot). What this thread is about would not solve that. It'd just have a lowsec mom delegating fighters to battleships and smartbombing shuttles still. In short nerfing drone control solves nothing and nerfs valid use.
|
Krall Amarr
Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 00:13:00 -
[1804]
magic day for zulu
maybe he come from soe?
http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/5279/anticarriernerfsig2mw1.jpg
|
Bren MacKay
Veto. Academy Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 00:15:00 -
[1805]
Originally by: Wyliee
Originally by: Acacia Everto
No. I wouldn't be dropping a solo carrier on anyone. Is it wrong to want to be able to control my own damn drones though? How about we make it so only three of your guns are user controllable, and make the other three controlled by your gang. And since the Vaga shouldn't be a solopwnmobile either, lets make its MWD gang controllable. After all, it's a gang ship, why should it need to control its own MWD?
what is the purpose of capships? if they ment to be a soloWTFpwn all ship then the way they are is great...
little story... i recently jumped into a low sec system in my pilgrim. inside the gate i sat and watched a wyvern ganking ship after ship with 20+ drones..
every ship that came through that gate died, and should a large fleet turn up..all they can hope to do is chase it away, the amount of mom kills in low sec can be counted on one hand.
is that what moms are for..i dont think so.
so because moms are overpowered in lowsec and need a nerf, carriers are too?
|
Icome4u
Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 00:17:00 -
[1806]
Originally by: Wyliee
Originally by: Acacia Everto
No. I wouldn't be dropping a solo carrier on anyone. Is it wrong to want to be able to control my own damn drones though? How about we make it so only three of your guns are user controllable, and make the other three controlled by your gang. And since the Vaga shouldn't be a solopwnmobile either, lets make its MWD gang controllable. After all, it's a gang ship, why should it need to control its own MWD?
what is the purpose of capships? if they ment to be a soloWTFpwn all ship then the way they are is great...
little story... i recently jumped into a low sec system in my pilgrim. inside the gate i sat and watched a wyvern ganking ship after ship with 20+ drones..
every ship that came through that gate died, and should a large fleet turn up..all they can hope to do is chase it away, the amount of mom kills in low sec can be counted on one hand.
is that what moms are for..i dont think so.
Use a scout? Only idiots die to a MS or a carrier. Heck bring a large fleet, bump him and kill him. But to be honest take Titans and MS out of low sec and voila no more noob whining their t1 frigate died to a 1 billion isk officer smartbomb.
Something you guys don't realize, those 'drones' aka fighters cost 20 million isk a peice. He aggros the sentries = those fighters will pop. So he killed a couple ships and lost lets say 4 fighters. Thats 80 million isk down the drain.
Oh and for the 'is that what mooms are for..i dont think so.' Well LOL hey lets make mining modules ONLY work on mining ships. Limit shield modules to certain ship/races oh and everyone MUST fit and use their BS the same way. Last time i checked, when you use an item for another way than it was created for, it's called creativity (within reasons of course). I'm not a 'drone' i do what i want in this game. Heck i live in 0.0 for that reason. I want to use my 60 billion isk officer fitted Wyvern to gank some people. LET ME. I want to mine in it? Who the hell are you to tell me it's wrong?
|
Moraguth
Amarr Shiva Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 00:22:00 -
[1807]
Originally by: Icome4u
Originally by: Wyliee
Originally by: Acacia Everto
No. I wouldn't be dropping a solo carrier on anyone. Is it wrong to want to be able to control my own damn drones though? How about we make it so only three of your guns are user controllable, and make the other three controlled by your gang. And since the Vaga shouldn't be a solopwnmobile either, lets make its MWD gang controllable. After all, it's a gang ship, why should it need to control its own MWD?
what is the purpose of capships? if they ment to be a soloWTFpwn all ship then the way they are is great...
little story... i recently jumped into a low sec system in my pilgrim. inside the gate i sat and watched a wyvern ganking ship after ship with 20+ drones..
every ship that came through that gate died, and should a large fleet turn up..all they can hope to do is chase it away, the amount of mom kills in low sec can be counted on one hand.
is that what moms are for..i dont think so.
Use a scout? Only idiots die to a MS or a carrier. Heck bring a large fleet, bump him and kill him. But to be honest take Titans and MS out of low sec and voila no more noob whining their t1 frigate died to a 1 billion isk officer smartbomb.
Something you guys don't realize, those 'drones' aka fighters cost 20 million isk a peice. He aggros the sentries = those fighters will pop. So he killed a couple ships and lost lets say 4 fighters. Thats 80 million isk down the drain.
Oh and for the 'is that what mooms are for..i dont think so.' Well LOL hey lets make mining modules ONLY work on mining ships. Limit shield modules to certain ship/races oh and everyone MUST fit and use their BS the same way. Last time i checked, when you use an item for another way than it was created for, it's called creativity (within reasons of course). I'm not a 'drone' i do what i want in this game. Heck i live in 0.0 for that reason. I want to use my 60 billion isk officer fitted Wyvern to gank some people. LET ME. I want to mine in it? Who the hell are you to tell me it's wrong?
HA! I'll tell you it's wrong every time i see you, but i'm sure as hell not going to try to change the rules of the game because i think you're being an idiot (mining with a mom) or an ass hole (camping a gate in lowsec). hehe, not actually calling you those things, cause i doubt you're doing them, but the point is you CAN do that because that's what this game is about. If I don't like it, I'm just gonna have to get some friends and come kill you to make you change your ways, THAT'S what this game is about.
=D
good game |
Bearclaww
The Ankou The Reckoning.
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 00:23:00 -
[1808]
Quote: Wow, the devs at CCP sure know how to haze the new guy! Was there snickering from your coworkers as they led you to the keyboard to type out your first dev blog, or were they able to keep a straight face? ;-)
The more i read this the more i agree with the above. This has got to be the stupidest idea i have heard. Seriously, it makes no sense why CCP would even fathom this idea is good, If so they need to go get a MRI and make sure brain tumors arent affecting their judgement.
Is this for real or did you guys sit down and think
"How can we make our new dev known in the Eve universe?" "Oh, I got it...tell them we are going to nerf the goals/reality of over half the player base...they will know him then"
Hahaha good one, at least I can hope that is the case.
On a more constructive note. Why would i invest year+ of training and a ton of isk on a worthless overpriced dominix?
Answer that CCP to my liking and I will support your move....right now i cant fathom a viable response.
Stealing sig, but i imagine everybody is its so great
|
Wyliee
Taurus Inc
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 00:24:00 -
[1809]
Originally by: Bren MacKay so because moms are overpowered in lowsec and need a nerf, carriers are too?
well good point, Deploying a carrier carries a certain risk, you cyno it in, attack the lone pilot, the lone pilot is tanked to f**k cyno opens up, warp scramed, dreds and carriers jump in or local rises..oh noes!
with moms the risk factor is 5% or less and they are more powerfull. moms are much more of a problem than carriers.
anyway on topic again.. is it me or is it gonna be just as effective when deployed with a gang of 5 other ships?
all that is gonna be different is that your gang is gonna have to primary right. and get thier **** together.
|
Acacia Everto
Wings of Redemption Black Flag Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 00:25:00 -
[1810]
Originally by: Moraguth
Originally by: Icome4u Use a scout? Only idiots die to a MS or a carrier. Heck bring a large fleet, bump him and kill him. But to be honest take Titans and MS out of low sec and voila no more noob whining their t1 frigate died to a 1 billion isk officer smartbomb.
Something you guys don't realize, those 'drones' aka fighters cost 20 million isk a peice. He aggros the sentries = those fighters will pop. So he killed a couple ships and lost lets say 4 fighters. Thats 80 million isk down the drain.
Oh and for the 'is that what mooms are for..i dont think so.' Well LOL hey lets make mining modules ONLY work on mining ships. Limit shield modules to certain ship/races oh and everyone MUST fit and use their BS the same way. Last time i checked, when you use an item for another way than it was created for, it's called creativity (within reasons of course). I'm not a 'drone' i do what i want in this game. Heck i live in 0.0 for that reason. I want to use my 60 billion isk officer fitted Wyvern to gank some people. LET ME. I want to mine in it? Who the hell are you to tell me it's wrong?
HA! I'll tell you it's wrong every time i see you, but i'm sure as hell not going to try to change the rules of the game because i think you're being an idiot (mining with a mom) or an ass hole (camping a gate in lowsec). hehe, not actually calling you those things, cause i doubt you're doing them, but the point is you CAN do that because that's what this game is about. If I don't like it, I'm just gonna have to get some friends and come kill you to make you change your ways, THAT'S what this game is about.
=D
Agreed! One of the reasons I love this game so much is that I can do whatever the hell I want with my game. I can fit NOS/neuts to my Hulk and pummel cruisers to death if I want. Choice is the flavor of the game and forcing us otherwise ruins the feel.
|
|
Xilimyth Derlin
OldBastardsPub SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 00:26:00 -
[1811]
Originally by: Moraguth
Originally by: Icome4u
Originally by: Wyliee
Originally by: Acacia Everto
No. I wouldn't be dropping a solo carrier on anyone. Is it wrong to want to be able to control my own damn drones though? How about we make it so only three of your guns are user controllable, and make the other three controlled by your gang. And since the Vaga shouldn't be a solopwnmobile either, lets make its MWD gang controllable. After all, it's a gang ship, why should it need to control its own MWD?
what is the purpose of capships? if they ment to be a soloWTFpwn all ship then the way they are is great...
little story... i recently jumped into a low sec system in my pilgrim. inside the gate i sat and watched a wyvern ganking ship after ship with 20+ drones..
every ship that came through that gate died, and should a large fleet turn up..all they can hope to do is chase it away, the amount of mom kills in low sec can be counted on one hand.
is that what moms are for..i dont think so.
Use a scout? Only idiots die to a MS or a carrier. Heck bring a large fleet, bump him and kill him. But to be honest take Titans and MS out of low sec and voila no more noob whining their t1 frigate died to a 1 billion isk officer smartbomb.
Something you guys don't realize, those 'drones' aka fighters cost 20 million isk a peice. He aggros the sentries = those fighters will pop. So he killed a couple ships and lost lets say 4 fighters. Thats 80 million isk down the drain.
Oh and for the 'is that what mooms are for..i dont think so.' Well LOL hey lets make mining modules ONLY work on mining ships. Limit shield modules to certain ship/races oh and everyone MUST fit and use their BS the same way. Last time i checked, when you use an item for another way than it was created for, it's called creativity (within reasons of course). I'm not a 'drone' i do what i want in this game. Heck i live in 0.0 for that reason. I want to use my 60 billion isk officer fitted Wyvern to gank some people. LET ME. I want to mine in it? Who the hell are you to tell me it's wrong?
HA! I'll tell you it's wrong every time i see you, but i'm sure as hell not going to try to change the rules of the game because i think you're being an idiot (mining with a mom) or an ass hole (camping a gate in lowsec). hehe, not actually calling you those things, cause i doubt you're doing them, but the point is you CAN do that because that's what this game is about. If I don't like it, I'm just gonna have to get some friends and come kill you to make you change your ways, THAT'S what this game is about.
=D
This line of thinking is something I can relate to. The question is, I've seen 'NERF mothership invulnerability' posts regarding low sec posted by players, but NOTHING like this change they're proposing.
From that point of view, I'm not quite sure this is so much 'players trying to nerf ships' as much as a reimagining by the devs on it.
I guess I'm just curious as to what data/observations/events/etc lead to this decision and why its being done over the repercussions of it.
|
Icome4u
Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 00:33:00 -
[1812]
Originally by: Moraguth
Originally by: Icome4u
Originally by: Wyliee
Originally by: Acacia Everto
No. I wouldn't be dropping a solo carrier on anyone. Is it wrong to want to be able to control my own damn drones though? How about we make it so only three of your guns are user controllable, and make the other three controlled by your gang. And since the Vaga shouldn't be a solopwnmobile either, lets make its MWD gang controllable. After all, it's a gang ship, why should it need to control its own MWD?
what is the purpose of capships? if they ment to be a soloWTFpwn all ship then the way they are is great...
little story... i recently jumped into a low sec system in my pilgrim. inside the gate i sat and watched a wyvern ganking ship after ship with 20+ drones..
every ship that came through that gate died, and should a large fleet turn up..all they can hope to do is chase it away, the amount of mom kills in low sec can be counted on one hand.
is that what moms are for..i dont think so.
Use a scout? Only idiots die to a MS or a carrier. Heck bring a large fleet, bump him and kill him. But to be honest take Titans and MS out of low sec and voila no more noob whining their t1 frigate died to a 1 billion isk officer smartbomb.
Something you guys don't realize, those 'drones' aka fighters cost 20 million isk a peice. He aggros the sentries = those fighters will pop. So he killed a couple ships and lost lets say 4 fighters. Thats 80 million isk down the drain.
Oh and for the 'is that what mooms are for..i dont think so.' Well LOL hey lets make mining modules ONLY work on mining ships. Limit shield modules to certain ship/races oh and everyone MUST fit and use their BS the same way. Last time i checked, when you use an item for another way than it was created for, it's called creativity (within reasons of course). I'm not a 'drone' i do what i want in this game. Heck i live in 0.0 for that reason. I want to use my 60 billion isk officer fitted Wyvern to gank some people. LET ME. I want to mine in it? Who the hell are you to tell me it's wrong?
HA! I'll tell you it's wrong every time i see you, but i'm sure as hell not going to try to change the rules of the game because i think you're being an idiot (mining with a mom) or an ass hole (camping a gate in lowsec). hehe, not actually calling you those things, cause i doubt you're doing them, but the point is you CAN do that because that's what this game is about. If I don't like it, I'm just gonna have to get some friends and come kill you to make you change your ways, THAT'S what this game is about.
=D
Yupp so you see my point! People whine about gate campers (i personaly ONLY kill reds thats it. I don't go looking for fights unless you **** me off then you die with absolutely no chance :)). I also don't mine in my epeen :p
But yeah, CCP is really disgusting me. They think that it's THEIR game and they want everyone to fit in their EVEDream... well thats not how it works. They provide a service we PAY for. They really need to wake up from their little clouds before it's to late and they kill this game. It's way way to late to comepletly change a class around. What they should do (if they want to keep their jobs) is just make support a better role... 70 pages of information they can use here. Heck they open a convo with me i'll be glad to tell them what to do for free. They get to fire the dumbass who had the idea stated in the Dev Blog and their their 'support class ships' they always wanted w/o ****ing off 95% of the community... but heh CCP = FAILS atm.
|
TheSystem
Caldari The Blackstone Group Brutally Clever Empire
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 00:33:00 -
[1813]
"OK Interns! LISTEN UP! We're lazy and there is no way in hell that we're actually gonna read all 70+ pages in that thread. GO! GO SUMMARIZE THEM FOR US!"
|
Xilimyth Derlin
OldBastardsPub SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 00:36:00 -
[1814]
Edited by: Xilimyth Derlin on 23/10/2007 00:36:04
Originally by: TheSystem "OK Interns! LISTEN UP! We're lazy and there is no way in hell that we're actually gonna read all 70+ pages in that thread. GO! GO SUMMARIZE THEM FOR US!"
Working on it actually..... I have now...... 5 pages of PRO arguments, and con arguments.
Need time to type it up, remove the duplicates/similar-ideas, keep it updated and maybe a Subway Club or something to keep me going after missing dinner O_o
|
Crovan
Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 00:36:00 -
[1815]
I'm going to be very honest (and hopefully constructive) here.
CCP, you had this coming. Not to say that the flames are justified, but the anger over the castration of capital fighter-based ships is totally on you guys. I read the dev blog again (and then once more), and I can see the concern that you guys are dealing with. Carriers are pretty nasty pieces of work in the right hands, and motherships even more so.
The urge to nerf that which is perceived as being too powerful is a natural part of the game design cycle, right? In this case, though, I think what we are dealing with mostly is a problem of perception. Carriers and moms are perceived as being too powerful, when, in fact, they have their own unique weaknesses and problems. Honestly, my first impression was that this proposal came from someone who has 1) never flown a carrier in a TQ engagement and/or 2) does not have significant experience in a fleet utilizing carriers in a large conflict. These two points are why I was so adamant months ago about devs playing the game on TQ like the rest of us.
First, for the claim that carriers/moms are death machines/solo pwnmobiles, this is simply unfounded. I would very much like to see the research done to demonstrate this fact, or is it simply the result of enough people griping on the forums? Fact is that a carrier/mom is pretty easy to get away from unless you do something wrong. Jumping into a place like Otou or another known mom-camping area without a scout falls into this category, by the way.
Second, carriers and moms are vulnerable, so long as you are competent and have a fleet to back you up. While lowsec motherships are much more difficult to take out, x13 has demonstrated that it is possible. To be honest, my suspicion is that low-sec capital camping is the real impetus of this change. In 0.0, a lone mom or carrier mucking around and camping is just begging to get ganked.
In my opinion, the recent interdictor changes made motherships a great deal more vulnerable in 0.0, and I think the recent streak of mom kills supports my assertion. The problem then, returns to lowsec. How about, instead of nerfing the ships that people have trained for months for (and spent billions on), something else gets added to even the odds a bit? Why not allow the stargates/sentry guns limited scrambling ability, or have an aggression counter preventing cynoing out after aggression, the same way sub-capitals do. Either of those give a potential attacker time to neut down a mothership below jumping capacity, and generally discourage gatecamping in one. The only way to avoid a well-organized gank would be to have a significant support fleet of your own, which is exactly the aim of this blog.
There is also the suggestion from the days before the bubble boost/supercap nerf of having a capital scale scrambler that is capable of scrambling another supercap. If these things could be held down more easily, it reduces their viability as solocamping deathmachines, but keeps their ability to defend themselves and provide fire support for a fleet intact.
The assigning/launching limitations simply would not work in the heat of the moment. It's already hard enough to get fighters assigned in a timely manner, and sometimes it is just better/easier to warp the capitals in and use them as additional rep support.
Also, Zulupark, congrats making it to the design team and good luck. My honest thought, though, is that nerfing these ships is not the answer. I would take a closer look at why the mechanics of the game allow the problems that you are trying to solve, and addressing those.
I would be honestly curious to know what the issue being solved here is, at a more specific level than what we have been told. I also can't be bothered going through 70 pages of flames for it, so if it could get added to the dev blog or Wrangler's post, that'd be swell.
-Cro
|
oniplE
NED-Clan R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 00:40:00 -
[1816]
The only thing wrong with the current "Fighter Wielding _ber Deathbringers"« are the motherships camping lowsec, i'd say fixing that is easy: either do not allow them to enter or remove/counter their EW immunity in low sec, simple. There is nothing wrong with their damage output.
As for nerfing normal carriers: Do you people even play the same game as we do? If they need changing, then its a boost. They are extremely vulnerable to EW, to the point where 2 t1 cruisers will completely shut it down.
Just throw this idea away, its horrible and it ruins the fun in the game for a lot of people.
|
Haakelen
Gallente United Forces Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 00:52:00 -
[1817]
Originally by: Crovan Damn fine words here
Thank you immensely. Now, CCP, listen to him!
|
Sinner aint'no'Saint
Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 00:52:00 -
[1818]
Originally by: CCP Eris Discordia Verone gets a cookie
Also it would help if people could try to look passed their own bias when they reply with constructive criticism.
Takk
PS for the right bribe I can slap, kick or throw stuff at him because he sits right beside me
Wow man, you should consider yourself a lucky SOB. Ive been waiting all day to get my hands on this little gem you wrote... But lucky for you I ran out of time before I had to go to work, and then it was really busy AT work, and then when I FINALLY got a break, my work computer crashed and now refuses to POST.
But now I am at home.... and all I want to know is who the hell do you think you are to call 45 pages (at the time) of posts from YOUR CLIENTS biased and nonobjective??? I cant believe that CCP has allowed people such as yourself and Zulu-wtfever his name was to represent them in quite possibly one of the biggest announcements they have made to their player base. You should be ashamed of yourself and the only person you should be kicking and slapping is yourself. Now, perhaps you'd like to find a Dev or Rep that can add something useful to such an atrociously run thread?
And for the record... people who fly moms and carriers who are speaking out against this change aren't biased, they are however experienced. Something which you should consider before opening your mouth and deteriorating this thread even further. Even countless pilots who don't fly moms and carriers are against this idea, did u consider that?
Why hasn't their been anything more official released or even better, retracted, so we can get on with our skill training, one way or the other?
|
Kwint Sommer
Incoherent Inc Otaku Invasion
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 00:53:00 -
[1819]
Originally by: Xilimyth Derlin Edited by: Xilimyth Derlin on 23/10/2007 00:36:04
Originally by: TheSystem "OK Interns! LISTEN UP! We're lazy and there is no way in hell that we're actually gonna read all 70+ pages in that thread. GO! GO SUMMARIZE THEM FOR US!"
Working on it actually..... I have now...... 5 pages of PRO arguments, and con arguments.
Need time to type it up, remove the duplicates/similar-ideas, keep it updated and maybe a Subway Club or something to keep me going after missing dinner O_o
Please see that my idea makes it on the list:
A workable system: If the squad/wing/fleet commander could control 5 drones/fighters per ship in the squad/wing/fleet regardless of which ship within the squad/wing/fleet they come from. You would still have the limited number of drones which is good for lag and having them centrally controlled would be nice for the fleet and probably reduce lag a little further. Also this would bring carriers closer to to how they should work than they currently are, especially motherships. It's hard to believe that a supercapital costing 25B can only control 20 drones at a time. Under this system that supercapital could launch all of it's fighters or two or three hundred heavy drones if it were in a fleet that large. Under this system a large fleet of say 50 ships would have a few carriers pumping out heavy drones that would be controlled as a massive squadron moving in formation by the fleet commander. This way a capital can't fight worth a damn on its own but in a large fleet it can send squadron after squadron of small but crippling drones to ravage the opposing fleet. This is how carrier combat works, a squadron of tiny little fighters each armed with a single torpedo can take down the largest of battleships in mere minutes but the carrier can only operate with a significant supporting fleet. Sig removed. Please keep sigs to 400x120 pixels and 24000 bytes in size or less. -Kaemonn |
Sinner aint'no'Saint
Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 00:54:00 -
[1820]
Originally by: Anstruther My two cents - please don't nerf the carrier.
The carrier can be scanned out in seconds and is an instant target when found - so to function alone you need some teeth. Not everyone wants to use them in a fleet all the time.
It takes great dedication to even get into one and even more to fly it well. That goes both for training and expense.
This proposed change, although it may seem like little, will take all the joy out of flying one.
Very well said!!!
|
|
MonkSEALPup
The Ankou The Reckoning.
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 00:56:00 -
[1821]
CCP - many of us need to know ASAP if you are going ahead with this idea.
Your suggestion is aweful, despicable, whatever... but we all know that hasn't stopped you before. So, let us have the truth, because this thread - a thread that is supposed to be getting feedback from the player base - sure contains a lot of CCP defensivness. Is your mind made up, and this just your way of breaking it to us slowly? Sure seems like it...
Yeah I stole this sig... |
Hazor Dris
Universal Exports
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 00:59:00 -
[1822]
Making these changes really solves nothing ccp. As many have said, it seems the OP hasn't flown a carrier in actual combat, or he would know that it is a pain in the ass to assign fighters, even in small engagements, much less 50 vs 50 fleet battles...also carriers already have to have support to be effective, if you come out in a carrier against more than a few BS alone you will soon be seeing the inside of your pod.
I fly a carrier, and I know the inherent risks and rewards of using it; I have been playing EVE for over 3 years now and a carrier was not something I originally wanted to fly, but moved towards gradually because I saw the usefulness for my corp. I'm glad I did so, but really with these changes I can say that I will have wasted the last 8 months or so of training. From experience, I can say that carriers are not hard to kill as they now stand; they are far far from being WTFBBQ-mobiles, in fact if you get caught in a gatecamp by a carrier or MOM I daresay you deserve it. And if not, well then you have learned one lesson, which is how most of us have learned to play eve.
Please listen to your players CCP, don't do this, and move in a different direction other than NERFING. And for gods sake just because one ship is good at doing something doesn't mean it is unbalanced, if we're all suppose to do/fly the same thing then lets all go hop into Ravens and fly to Jita.
|
Diablique
The Arrow Project
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 01:01:00 -
[1823]
Edited by: Diablique on 23/10/2007 01:01:41 Edited by: Diablique on 23/10/2007 01:01:06 Hi, I'm Zalapurk and recently transferred from the Quality Assurance department to the Game Design team. IÆve been with CCP for just under two years now and donÆt plan on going anywhere. Say hello to your newest balancer (I still haven't received a nerfbat though).
I'm posting here now because the last few days we've been looking at the way battleships are functioning on Tranquility, and to be honest weære a little concerned with the direction itæs taking.
What we want is pretty basic: We want to make battleships more reliant on their support fleet and less of a direct nber deathbringer.
How are we going to do it?
Well, we have an idea, and before you go ballistic remember that this is an idea and weære still working on it:
We plan on changing the way guns work, and have it so that you can still have all the guns you want (within limits of your ship/skills) but you can only directly fire 2 of them at a time. That means that a battleship can assign 2 guns to a gang mate, assign 2 more to another gang mate etc. etc.
This means you will NOT be able to fire 6/7/8 guns from a battleship and aim them all to incinerate a cruiser in .2 seconds. It does however mean that you can assign 2 guns to each of your lilæ friends in the fleet and use them as the messengers of your burning fury.
Remember, weære not messing with the final total amount of guns you can have, just the amount you can control and delegate at a time. You can of course also operate 2 guns and make them attack a target of your own choice, if it pleases you.
|
Moraguth
Amarr Shiva Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 01:01:00 -
[1824]
2100 posts now and climbing. Still seen less than 10 posts in support of this change. hmmm... 10 out of 2100. If I round up, that's 0.5% of the posts are in favor of this change. And i think only one of those had a reasoned response (instead of just "i like it"). That leaves 99.95+% of your players: newbs, bob, mc, vets, carebears, pirates, griefers, traders, miners etc.....: saying this is a bad idea and most of those posts give good reasons why this is bad.
Heh, and I thought BoB hatred was the one thing most players could agree upon (just playin guys, don't hurt me), this takes the cake!
good game |
the Poet
Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 01:10:00 -
[1825]
Give us a desync module!!!
*snip* Do not use your sig to troll. -Elmo Pug |
Coolgamer
Minmatar Res Publica R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 01:11:00 -
[1826]
Originally by: Diablique Edited by: Diablique on 23/10/2007 01:01:41 Edited by: Diablique on 23/10/2007 01:01:06 Hi, I'm Zalapurk and recently transferred from the Quality Assurance department to the Game Design team. IÆve been with CCP for just under two years now and donÆt plan on going anywhere. Say hello to your newest balancer (I still haven't received a nerfbat though).
I'm posting here now because the last few days we've been looking at the way battleships are functioning on Tranquility, and to be honest weære a little concerned with the direction itæs taking.
What we want is pretty basic: We want to make battleships more reliant on their support fleet and less of a direct nber deathbringer.
How are we going to do it?
Well, we have an idea, and before you go ballistic remember that this is an idea and weære still working on it:
We plan on changing the way guns work, and have it so that you can still have all the guns you want (within limits of your ship/skills) but you can only directly fire 2 of them at a time. That means that a battleship can assign 2 guns to a gang mate, assign 2 more to another gang mate etc. etc.
This means you will NOT be able to fire 6/7/8 guns from a battleship and aim them all to incinerate a cruiser in .2 seconds. It does however mean that you can assign 2 guns to each of your lilæ friends in the fleet and use them as the messengers of your burning fury.
Remember, weære not messing with the final total amount of guns you can have, just the amount you can control and delegate at a time. You can of course also operate 2 guns and make them attack a target of your own choice, if it pleases you.
i just looooled at this
good one
|
Bon Hedus
Amarr O.E.C Legionnaire Services Ltd.
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 01:11:00 -
[1827]
Originally by: Crovan I'm going to be very honest (and hopefully constructive) here.
CCP, you had this coming. Not to say that the flames are justified, but the anger over the castration of capital fighter-based ships is totally on you guys. I read the dev blog again (and then once more), and I can see the concern that you guys are dealing with. Carriers are pretty nasty pieces of work in the right hands, and motherships even more so.
The urge to nerf that which is perceived as being too powerful is a natural part of the game design cycle, right? In this case, though, I think what we are dealing with mostly is a problem of perception. Carriers and moms are perceived as being too powerful, when, in fact, they have their own unique weaknesses and problems. Honestly, my first impression was that this proposal came from someone who has 1) never flown a carrier in a TQ engagement and/or 2) does not have significant experience in a fleet utilizing carriers in a large conflict. These two points are why I was so adamant months ago about devs playing the game on TQ like the rest of us.
First, for the claim that carriers/moms are death machines/solo pwnmobiles, this is simply unfounded. I would very much like to see the research done to demonstrate this fact, or is it simply the result of enough people griping on the forums? Fact is that a carrier/mom is pretty easy to get away from unless you do something wrong. Jumping into a place like Otou or another known mom-camping area without a scout falls into this category, by the way.
Second, carriers and moms are vulnerable, so long as you are competent and have a fleet to back you up. While lowsec motherships are much more difficult to take out, x13 has demonstrated that it is possible. To be honest, my suspicion is that low-sec capital camping is the real impetus of this change. In 0.0, a lone mom or carrier mucking around and camping is just begging to get ganked.
In my opinion, the recent interdictor changes made motherships a great deal more vulnerable in 0.0, and I think the recent streak of mom kills supports my assertion. The problem then, returns to lowsec. How about, instead of nerfing the ships that people have trained for months for (and spent billions on), something else gets added to even the odds a bit? Why not allow the stargates/sentry guns limited scrambling ability, or have an aggression counter preventing cynoing out after aggression, the same way sub-capitals do. Either of those give a potential attacker time to neut down a mothership below jumping capacity, and generally discourage gatecamping in one. The only way to avoid a well-organized gank would be to have a significant support fleet of your own, which is exactly the aim of this blog.
There is also the suggestion from the days before the bubble boost/supercap nerf of having a capital scale scrambler that is capable of scrambling another supercap. If these things could be held down more easily, it reduces their viability as solocamping deathmachines, but keeps their ability to defend themselves and provide fire support for a fleet intact.
The assigning/launching limitations simply would not work in the heat of the moment. It's already hard enough to get fighters assigned in a timely manner, and sometimes it is just better/easier to warp the capitals in and use them as additional rep support.
Also, Zulupark, congrats making it to the design team and good luck. My honest thought, though, is that nerfing these ships is not the answer. I would take a closer look at why the mechanics of the game allow the problems that you are trying to solve, and addressing those.
I would be honestly curious to know what the issue being solved here is, at a more specific level than what we have been told. I also can't be bothered going through 70 pages of flames for it, so if it could get added to the dev blog or Wrangler's post, that'd be swell.
-Cro
Much good stuff here
-------------------------------------- Heavy Lag Spike II belonging to EvE Cluster Node #0815 hits your Connection, wrecking your latency to 998ms
|
Styre Blixtsnabb
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 01:12:00 -
[1828]
Didn't read through everyone's replies to many already. First couple pages were enough to get the general feel everybody had.
I understand why CCP would want to make such a change. Like they say they want carrier class capitol ships to be fleet support. Maybe it would be good to take a look at what carriers do today. Carriers rarely supply fleet support other than by lending manpower to other ships or using their fighters to ward off enemies. Rather they are platforms for lauching all kinds of various death and destruction via maned aircraft. They also have very sophisticated sensor systems to watch the battlefield. Now this is EVE not modern day, and we sail the solar winds instead of the ocean waves. Naturally this will give some changes to the roll of the carrier.
I saw a few posts talking about bomber drones. This seems like a good idea and perhaps differnt types of fighter drones is the way to go. I feel that limiting the amount of drones/fighters a carrier can control at the same time is a backwards move that dosen't make sense technologically. I would much rather see the problem solved another way. But again, on to those cool drone ideas. Perhaps fighter drones could become more specialized like their races. Maybe certain Caldari drones could actually fire missles, or certain Amarr drones fire high powered lasers.
So even though carriers are capitol class ships they still need their fleets. However, they are still "Capitols" so they should have the power to backup the title. Hope this was helpful.
Pirates don't use Spell Check
|
Chayni
Dune Heretics
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 01:13:00 -
[1829]
Edited by: Chayni on 23/10/2007 01:13:15 just because one ship is good at doing something doesn't mean it is unbalanced, if we're all suppose to do/fly the same thing then lets all go hop into Ravens and fly to Jita.
This.
|
Xilimyth Derlin
OldBastardsPub SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 01:15:00 -
[1830]
Edited by: Xilimyth Derlin on 23/10/2007 01:19:20
Originally by: Moraguth 2100 posts now and climbing. Still seen less than 10 posts in support of this change. hmmm... 10 out of 2100. If I round up, that's 0.5% of the posts are in favor of this change. And i think only one of those had a reasoned response (instead of just "i like it"). That leaves 99.95+% of your players: newbs, bob, mc, vets, carebears, pirates, griefers, traders, miners etc.....: saying this is a bad idea and most of those posts give good reasons why this is bad.
Heh, and I thought BoB hatred was the one thing most players could agree upon (just playin guys, don't hurt me), this takes the cake!
For the record, I've been combing through this post compiling that synopsis for newcomers to the thread and devs alike. There IS a significant percentage greater opposed to this over for it.... though most of the posts I've been weeding through are unconstructive dev bashes and flames over posts I can build into the overall synopsis.
While that does show points against the idea.... it doesn't give me much to show in the overall scheme of this rather massive thread.
Know this though.... there are FAR more against it even from a constructive standpoint then for it at the moment judging by the ideas column.
PS DISCLAIMER - As for why I'm doing this .... I may not be a carrier pilot yet... but it's VERY close (then another month to do it effectively), so this DOES affect me and how I'll be playing.
|
|
Ewan Heaven
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 01:18:00 -
[1831]
Originally by: Xilimyth Derlin
Originally by: Moraguth 2100 posts now and climbing. Still seen less than 10 posts in support of this change. hmmm... 10 out of 2100. If I round up, that's 0.5% of the posts are in favor of this change. And i think only one of those had a reasoned response (instead of just "i like it"). That leaves 99.95+% of your players: newbs, bob, mc, vets, carebears, pirates, griefers, traders, miners etc.....: saying this is a bad idea and most of those posts give good reasons why this is bad.
Heh, and I thought BoB hatred was the one thing most players could agree upon (just playin guys, don't hurt me), this takes the cake!
For the record, I've been combing through this post compiling that synopsis for newcomers to the thread and devs alike. There IS a significant percentage greater opposed to this over for it.... though most of the posts I've been weeding through are unconstructive dev bashes and flames over posts I can build into the overall synopsis.
While that does show points against the idea.... it doesn't give me much to show in the overall scheme of this rather massive thread.
Know this though.... there are FAR more against it even from a constructive standpoint then for it at the moment judging by the ideas column.
even if the post are flame and not constructive, they COUNT because there are from people that simply dont want this change and DONT need to be constructive about telling why they dont.
as simple as this.
if you dont like, you dont no need to argue why you dont, and i dont.
|
Sasha Saucer
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 01:20:00 -
[1832]
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.
hmmmm... he says "last few days"
Your thinking of nerfing carriers based on a few days of analysis? Any hard facts to backup your claim? Have you been in any fleet OPs lately? Have you tried to assign drones in a laggy system? Have you watched how easy Fighters can be killed. Have you seen how easy it is to outrun fighters in a ceptor???
Well I have attacked and defended carriers in space and they are fragile in their current state.
I do agree 100% that MOMs should not be able to camp a gate in low sec, but thats another issue. However, this proposal is dangerous and completely uncalled for.
If I went into work and made a proposal that I couldnt back up 100% with hard facts, I would likely be fired or the very least would lose the respect of my superiors.
Ball is back in your court. Kill this idea fast. |
Viro Melchior
Interstellar eXodus R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 01:21:00 -
[1833]
I think the "easiest" solution to fix blobbing is tripling fighter power and cutting deployables by 66%. Result is that a carrier remains just as deadly alone, but with at most 5 fighters (at max skill).
Upsides:
[*]Minimal initial coding changes [*]Balances the same with motherships
The downsides of this are:
[*]Doesn't solve the issue of carriers being able to kill things (wtf CCP?) [*]5 Fighters deployed to a frig is too much pwnmobile
Solutions:
Change the current setup to be
[*]Drones V doesn't let you control 5 fighters. [*]Carrier skill gives 1 fighter per rank [*]Drone control units let you delegate 1 fighter per unit. Each mod gives a 20% reduction in maximum velocity while active. Cycle time is increased to 60 seconds (from 20).
Results:
[*]You can't have a repair carrier that can still deploy all 5 fighters to friends, although it can field 5 fighters for itself (better than currently, as you don't NEED to run the highslots full of DCUs). A carrier can make one ship a pwnmobile, but that carrier won't be much good in any other way, and will be a sitting duck due to a cumulative 67.3% speed reduction with 5 DCUs if a prober finds it. [*]Carriers with only 2-3 DCUs (and repair mods or whatever in the rest) can only field 2-3 drones to a ship, and keep the other 2-3 for themselves. [*]Carriers running Triage and strong repair modules can only use their fighters to defend themselves, but come out better than before if they are on the front lines keeping friends alive (5 new fighters vs 10 old fighters). [*]Fighter lag dropped 66%. [*]You can only control 10 drones (versus up to 15 right now, correct), but that's not as bad as the suggestion to drop it to 5, and will still allow the Thanatos to out-dps the Moros with sentries I believe (very important that the drone boat is better than the dreadnaught w/ drone bonuses), as well as field 10 shield repair drones for POS repair work.
|
Xilimyth Derlin
OldBastardsPub SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 01:22:00 -
[1834]
Originally by: Ewan Heaven
Originally by: Xilimyth Derlin
Originally by: Moraguth 2100 posts now and climbing. Still seen less than 10 posts in support of this change. hmmm... 10 out of 2100. If I round up, that's 0.5% of the posts are in favor of this change. And i think only one of those had a reasoned response (instead of just "i like it"). That leaves 99.95+% of your players: newbs, bob, mc, vets, carebears, pirates, griefers, traders, miners etc.....: saying this is a bad idea and most of those posts give good reasons why this is bad.
Heh, and I thought BoB hatred was the one thing most players could agree upon (just playin guys, don't hurt me), this takes the cake!
For the record, I've been combing through this post compiling that synopsis for newcomers to the thread and devs alike. There IS a significant percentage greater opposed to this over for it.... though most of the posts I've been weeding through are unconstructive dev bashes and flames over posts I can build into the overall synopsis.
While that does show points against the idea.... it doesn't give me much to show in the overall scheme of this rather massive thread.
Know this though.... there are FAR more against it even from a constructive standpoint then for it at the moment judging by the ideas column.
even if the post are flame and not constructive, they COUNT because there are from people that simply dont want this change and DONT need to be constructive about telling why they dont.
as simple as this.
if you dont like, you dont no need to argue why you dont, and i dont.
Ok ... lemme rephrase this..... I still have PRO/CON posts tallied for UNIQUE posters.... so yes they count. But the devs have already said they want constructive critism, so that's where I'm focusing so that it's clear and concise WHY it's a bad idea. Otherwise, all the 'low-sec-just-got-smartbombed-n00bs' would have just as much right to come in here, post 'I like it' and still count just as much as any other carrier pilot because of their 'paying-customer' status also.
I'm trying to be as comprehensive as possible on both sides, believe me. Keeping track on who's posted when the thread grows every 5 minutes is difficult.
|
Bon Hedus
Amarr O.E.C Legionnaire Services Ltd.
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 01:25:00 -
[1835]
Originally by: Xilimyth Derlin Edited by: Xilimyth Derlin on 23/10/2007 01:19:20
Originally by: Moraguth 2100 posts now and climbing. Still seen less than 10 posts in support of this change. hmmm... 10 out of 2100. If I round up, that's 0.5% of the posts are in favor of this change. And i think only one of those had a reasoned response (instead of just "i like it"). That leaves 99.95+% of your players: newbs, bob, mc, vets, carebears, pirates, griefers, traders, miners etc.....: saying this is a bad idea and most of those posts give good reasons why this is bad.
Heh, and I thought BoB hatred was the one thing most players could agree upon (just playin guys, don't hurt me), this takes the cake!
For the record, I've been combing through this post compiling that synopsis for newcomers to the thread and devs alike. There IS a significant percentage greater opposed to this over for it.... though most of the posts I've been weeding through are unconstructive dev bashes and flames over posts I can build into the overall synopsis.
While that does show points against the idea.... it doesn't give me much to show in the overall scheme of this rather massive thread.
Know this though.... there are FAR more against it even from a constructive standpoint then for it at the moment judging by the ideas column.
PS DISCLAIMER - As for why I'm doing this .... I may not be a carrier pilot yet... but it's VERY close (then another month to do it effectively), so this DOES affect me and how I'll be playing.
For those posting flames, you can mark it down as a resounding NO towards the idea. That this would even be floated a potential idea is ludicrous, and that CCP Eris Discordia would then call the nay sayers biased just fans the flames. It sounds like the dev team is intending to push this through no matter what is said on this forum, hence the flames.
-------------------------------------- Heavy Lag Spike II belonging to EvE Cluster Node #0815 hits your Connection, wrecking your latency to 998ms
|
Alex Hawke
Nocturnal Soldiers
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 01:26:00 -
[1836]
Originally by: Sinner aint'no'Saint
Originally by: CCP Eris Discordia Verone gets a cookie
Also it would help if people could try to look passed their own bias when they reply with constructive criticism.
Takk
PS for the right bribe I can slap, kick or throw stuff at him because he sits right beside me
Wow man, you should consider yourself a lucky SOB. Ive been waiting all day to get my hands on this little gem you wrote... But lucky for you I ran out of time before I had to go to work, and then it was really busy AT work, and then when I FINALLY got a break, my work computer crashed and now refuses to POST.
But now I am at home.... and all I want to know is who the hell do you think you are to call 45 pages (at the time) of posts from YOUR CLIENTS biased and nonobjective??? I cant believe that CCP has allowed people such as yourself and Zulu-wtfever his name was to represent them in quite possibly one of the biggest announcements they have made to their player base. You should be ashamed of yourself and the only person you should be kicking and slapping is yourself. Now, perhaps you'd like to find a Dev or Rep that can add something useful to such an atrociously run thread?
And for the record... people who fly moms and carriers who are speaking out against this change aren't biased, they are however experienced. Something which you should consider before opening your mouth and deteriorating this thread even further. Even countless pilots who don't fly moms and carriers are against this idea, did u consider that?
Why hasn't their been anything more official released or even better, retracted, so we can get on with our skill training, one way or the other?
Well said.
Its really very simple. CCP makes a Poll on the EVE-O web site so people can vote if they are for or against it. That is the easiest and most simple way to get in touch with the player base. People can vote once per account and there are your results.
And by the way i am 110% against this.
I just spent a year training caps and about a bil on skills and if this goes through its all for nothing.
|
Plague Rexus
Gallente D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 01:26:00 -
[1837]
So in no particular Order the reasons not to nerf the carrier are:
1. The impossibility of working the existing delegation system among the other micromanagment aspects of fleet combat and large scale PVP. 2. The tremendous waste of time and isk for thousands or tens of thousands of players. 3. The fact this seems to be a reaction to an issue which barely exists by a non capital pilot who doesnt have a feel for the existing place, strengths and weaknesses of a ship almost all of us who are posting here know inside out. 4. Potential increases in server load, lag, size of battles aswell as frustration, boredom and increase in non active combat participation. 5. Nerfing a Sci Fi dream into a giant band aid that smacks of utter in game impotence but finally creating a position for miners in combat. 6. Carriers and motherships all but dissapear from frontline combat. 7. Without the fun of your own control, carrier pilots remain at a pos as there is no reason to risk your ship. They then lose millions of isk on a daily basis to there own fleet using the fighters they paid for personally to attack things at pos's or not watching the health etc the list goes on. 8. EVERY carrier pilot in eve disagrees with you, and the 0.5% that agree with you have been ganked by a carrier at a lowsec gate - your nerfing the wrong thing. 9. For some people this is an absolute game breaking decision. You are potentially creating an underclass of carrier pilots. 10. We the public are your only client, you are taking a product we like nay love very well and are telling us you think we need a new flavour. We are very admantly telling you we are happy with the existing flavour. This is a business decision, please make the right call.
Welcome to the greatest protest thread in eve history.
|
Xilimyth Derlin
OldBastardsPub SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 01:27:00 -
[1838]
Originally by: Bon Hedus
Originally by: Xilimyth Derlin Edited by: Xilimyth Derlin on 23/10/2007 01:19:20
Originally by: Moraguth 2100 posts now and climbing. Still seen less than 10 posts in support of this change. hmmm... 10 out of 2100. If I round up, that's 0.5% of the posts are in favor of this change. And i think only one of those had a reasoned response (instead of just "i like it"). That leaves 99.95+% of your players: newbs, bob, mc, vets, carebears, pirates, griefers, traders, miners etc.....: saying this is a bad idea and most of those posts give good reasons why this is bad.
Heh, and I thought BoB hatred was the one thing most players could agree upon (just playin guys, don't hurt me), this takes the cake!
For the record, I've been combing through this post compiling that synopsis for newcomers to the thread and devs alike. There IS a significant percentage greater opposed to this over for it.... though most of the posts I've been weeding through are unconstructive dev bashes and flames over posts I can build into the overall synopsis.
While that does show points against the idea.... it doesn't give me much to show in the overall scheme of this rather massive thread.
Know this though.... there are FAR more against it even from a constructive standpoint then for it at the moment judging by the ideas column.
PS DISCLAIMER - As for why I'm doing this .... I may not be a carrier pilot yet... but it's VERY close (then another month to do it effectively), so this DOES affect me and how I'll be playing.
For those posting flames, you can mark it down as a resounding NO towards the idea. That this would even be floated a potential idea is ludicrous, and that CCP Eris Discordia would then call the nay sayers biased just fans the flames. It sounds like the dev team is intending to push this through no matter what is said on this forum, hence the flames.
I assure you it is being marked as a NO. Anything I can't tell a direction on, I'm likely going to EVEMail in game (there are some heavily neutral posts too). But the count WILL be there on a unique poster basis.
Anyone want to play auditor on it when I'm done? O-o
|
Attack Dog
Caldari Terran Robotics Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 01:28:00 -
[1839]
Originally by: Icome4u LOL their's less than 30 people (all of them being less than 1 year old) that say yes for this idea and over 1800 that say's no.
Just stop the slaughtering CCP, state it was a bad idea, excuse yourself for insulting all of us and move toward another idea. Hey id personally love to be able to walk in stations before 2010! So go work on that mates :)
/signed ------sig starts here------ Don't be a noob, stop whinning 4 nerf's 2day |
Ewan Heaven
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 01:31:00 -
[1840]
Originally by: Xilimyth Derlin
Originally by: Ewan Heaven
Originally by: Xilimyth Derlin
Originally by: Moraguth 2100 posts now and climbing. Still seen less than 10 posts in support of this change. hmmm... 10 out of 2100. If I round up, that's 0.5% of the posts are in favor of this change. And i think only one of those had a reasoned response (instead of just "i like it"). That leaves 99.95+% of your players: newbs, bob, mc, vets, carebears, pirates, griefers, traders, miners etc.....: saying this is a bad idea and most of those posts give good reasons why this is bad.
Heh, and I thought BoB hatred was the one thing most players could agree upon (just playin guys, don't hurt me), this takes the cake!
For the record, I've been combing through this post compiling that synopsis for newcomers to the thread and devs alike. There IS a significant percentage greater opposed to this over for it.... though most of the posts I've been weeding through are unconstructive dev bashes and flames over posts I can build into the overall synopsis.
While that does show points against the idea.... it doesn't give me much to show in the overall scheme of this rather massive thread.
Know this though.... there are FAR more against it even from a constructive standpoint then for it at the moment judging by the ideas column.
even if the post are flame and not constructive, they COUNT because there are from people that simply dont want this change and DONT need to be constructive about telling why they dont.
as simple as this.
if you dont like, you dont no need to argue why you dont, and i dont.
Ok ... lemme rephrase this..... I still have PRO/CON posts tallied for UNIQUE posters.... so yes they count. But the devs have already said they want constructive critism, so that's where I'm focusing so that it's clear and concise WHY it's a bad idea. Otherwise, all the 'low-sec-just-got-smartbombed-n00bs' would have just as much right to come in here, post 'I like it' and still count just as much as any other carrier pilot because of their 'paying-customer' status also.
I'm trying to be as comprehensive as possible on both sides, believe me. Keeping track on who's posted when the thread grows every 5 minutes is difficult.
i know it, and it sadden me a lot to see that devs simply denie the simple "NO, I DONT WANT THIS" to exist
|
|
Faeryl Lylean
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 01:33:00 -
[1841]
Originally by: Alex Hawke
Originally by: Sinner aint'no'Saint
Originally by: CCP Eris Discordia Verone gets a cookie
Also it would help if people could try to look passed their own bias when they reply with constructive criticism.
Takk
PS for the right bribe I can slap, kick or throw stuff at him because he sits right beside me
Wow man, you should consider yourself a lucky SOB. Ive been waiting all day to get my hands on this little gem you wrote... But lucky for you I ran out of time before I had to go to work, and then it was really busy AT work, and then when I FINALLY got a break, my work computer crashed and now refuses to POST.
But now I am at home.... and all I want to know is who the hell do you think you are to call 45 pages (at the time) of posts from YOUR CLIENTS biased and nonobjective??? I cant believe that CCP has allowed people such as yourself and Zulu-wtfever his name was to represent them in quite possibly one of the biggest announcements they have made to their player base. You should be ashamed of yourself and the only person you should be kicking and slapping is yourself. Now, perhaps you'd like to find a Dev or Rep that can add something useful to such an atrociously run thread?
And for the record... people who fly moms and carriers who are speaking out against this change aren't biased, they are however experienced. Something which you should consider before opening your mouth and deteriorating this thread even further. Even countless pilots who don't fly moms and carriers are against this idea, did u consider that?
Why hasn't their been anything more official released or even better, retracted, so we can get on with our skill training, one way or the other?
Well said.
Its really very simple. CCP makes a Poll on the EVE-O web site so people can vote if they are for or against it. That is the easiest and most simple way to get in touch with the player base. People can vote once per account and there are your results.
And by the way i am 110% against this.
I just spent a year training caps and about a bil on skills and if this goes through its all for nothing.
i wont trust a CCP poll on that, replies here are better at least we see them
|
Alex Hawke
Nocturnal Soldiers
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 01:34:00 -
[1842]
Originally by: Faeryl Lylean
Originally by: Alex Hawke
Originally by: Sinner aint'no'Saint
Originally by: CCP Eris Discordia Verone gets a cookie
Also it would help if people could try to look passed their own bias when they reply with constructive criticism.
Takk
PS for the right bribe I can slap, kick or throw stuff at him because he sits right beside me
Wow man, you should consider yourself a lucky SOB. Ive been waiting all day to get my hands on this little gem you wrote... But lucky for you I ran out of time before I had to go to work, and then it was really busy AT work, and then when I FINALLY got a break, my work computer crashed and now refuses to POST.
But now I am at home.... and all I want to know is who the hell do you think you are to call 45 pages (at the time) of posts from YOUR CLIENTS biased and nonobjective??? I cant believe that CCP has allowed people such as yourself and Zulu-wtfever his name was to represent them in quite possibly one of the biggest announcements they have made to their player base. You should be ashamed of yourself and the only person you should be kicking and slapping is yourself. Now, perhaps you'd like to find a Dev or Rep that can add something useful to such an atrociously run thread?
And for the record... people who fly moms and carriers who are speaking out against this change aren't biased, they are however experienced. Something which you should consider before opening your mouth and deteriorating this thread even further. Even countless pilots who don't fly moms and carriers are against this idea, did u consider that?
Why hasn't their been anything more official released or even better, retracted, so we can get on with our skill training, one way or the other?
Well said.
Its really very simple. CCP makes a Poll on the EVE-O web site so people can vote if they are for or against it. That is the easiest and most simple way to get in touch with the player base. People can vote once per account and there are your results.
And by the way i am 110% against this.
I just spent a year training caps and about a bil on skills and if this goes through its all for nothing.
i wont trust a CCP poll on that, replies here are better at least we see them
I guess you are right.
|
Xilimyth Derlin
OldBastardsPub SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 01:36:00 -
[1843]
Originally by: Faeryl Lylean
Originally by: Alex Hawke
Originally by: Sinner aint'no'Saint
Originally by: CCP Eris Discordia Verone gets a cookie
Also it would help if people could try to look passed their own bias when they reply with constructive criticism.
Takk
PS for the right bribe I can slap, kick or throw stuff at him because he sits right beside me
Wow man, you should consider yourself a lucky SOB. Ive been waiting all day to get my hands on this little gem you wrote... But lucky for you I ran out of time before I had to go to work, and then it was really busy AT work, and then when I FINALLY got a break, my work computer crashed and now refuses to POST.
But now I am at home.... and all I want to know is who the hell do you think you are to call 45 pages (at the time) of posts from YOUR CLIENTS biased and nonobjective??? I cant believe that CCP has allowed people such as yourself and Zulu-wtfever his name was to represent them in quite possibly one of the biggest announcements they have made to their player base. You should be ashamed of yourself and the only person you should be kicking and slapping is yourself. Now, perhaps you'd like to find a Dev or Rep that can add something useful to such an atrociously run thread?
And for the record... people who fly moms and carriers who are speaking out against this change aren't biased, they are however experienced. Something which you should consider before opening your mouth and deteriorating this thread even further. Even countless pilots who don't fly moms and carriers are against this idea, did u consider that?
Why hasn't their been anything more official released or even better, retracted, so we can get on with our skill training, one way or the other?
Well said.
Its really very simple. CCP makes a Poll on the EVE-O web site so people can vote if they are for or against it. That is the easiest and most simple way to get in touch with the player base. People can vote once per account and there are your results.
And by the way i am 110% against this.
I just spent a year training caps and about a bil on skills and if this goes through its all for nothing.
i wont trust a CCP poll on that, replies here are better at least we see them
Polls can be manipulated. Alts in general will skew it (people who REALLY have a strong opinion will have no problem staying up all night creating accounts to vote on it). Not saying THIS way is infallible, but at least the longer posts actually show some conscious thought.
|
Xilimyth Derlin
OldBastardsPub SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 01:43:00 -
[1844]
Edited by: Xilimyth Derlin on 23/10/2007 01:48:16
Originally by: Icome4u
Xilimyth Derlin - Just stop, you are making a fool of yourself now. Oh and if someone wants to create 5 accounts and pay $100 just to add 5 votes then thats their money wasted (trial accounts wouldn't be able to vote... DUH!).
Eh, I feel like I fool now. I'm still working in two windows and a spreadsheet and misinterpreted that as the fan site with all the ship info and mission info stuff. ^_^. But thanks for your response either way. ^^
EDIT: EVEINFO.COM! (I knew I'd remember the name eventually ^^)
Carrier & Mothership changes |
Duff Man
Caldari The Nine Gates Aftermath Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 01:49:00 -
[1845]
Sig says it all really. Tbqh I think this suggestion (Idea) is ridiculous.
-----------------------
|
Mifter Hogdido
Amarr The 0ri Origin Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 01:51:00 -
[1846]
Proud to support my new sig. -----------------
|
Aerick Dawn
Gallente The Arrow Project Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 01:57:00 -
[1847]
The thing that irks me is that this post proves already that CCP has gone way too SOE with us as far as player base relations go.
How could they not have thought they would receive a response like this? You know this post went through a meeting or two to even POST it when they should have known the response was going to be very vigorous.
As a player since beta 4, this is the dumbest thing you've ever even considered doing. Guess what, us vets were the ones that carried you through those first months when only 1500 people were logged in on a good day, and now you are kicking us in the nuts in order to even the playing field.
Thanks CCP, very heartfelt.
__________________ If I'm in a fair fight, i've done something terribly wrong. |
Duff Man
Caldari The Nine Gates Aftermath Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 01:57:00 -
[1848]
Also a note for those who think its carrier pilots only that are supporting this. I am not a carrier pilot, and while i have considered working towards one I do not currently have the skills, nor the skill books for those skills.
I'm protesting because this change would turn carriers, which are already far from overpowered imo, into logistics ships. The only time as eve players we would end up seeing these things is if we go to their POS to see them hiding as there is virtually no way that you will see people fielding these things on the battlefield if this change goes through.
-----------------------
|
Baun
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 01:59:00 -
[1849]
Carriers are definitely solo pwn mobiles that can wtf*****all ships smaller than them without any support.
O wait: http://killboard.net/details/201246/
This carrier didn't even have a single BS contribute to its death and it still died to less than a dozen ships, only half of which were t2!
Holy crap carriers are way too awesome, lets just delete them all from the game!
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
TheSystem
Caldari The Blackstone Group Brutally Clever Empire
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 02:01:00 -
[1850]
CCP if you really want to fix carrier blobbing, then do that! There is no need to just gimp the ship itself, make some reason why people should just be discouraged to blob ( in general, blobbing is no fun anyway..)
--------------------------------------------
|
|
Icome4u
Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 02:02:00 -
[1851]
Originally by: Baun Carriers are definitely solo pwn mobiles that can wtf*****all ships smaller than them without any support.
O wait: http://killboard.net/details/201246/
This carrier didn't even have a single BS contribute to its death and it still died to less than a dozen ships, only half of which were t2!
Holy crap carriers are way too awesome, lets just delete them all from the game!
That carrier stood no chance.
|
Acacia Everto
Wings of Redemption Black Flag Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 02:06:00 -
[1852]
Originally by: Icome4u
Originally by: Baun Carriers are definitely solo pwn mobiles that can wtf*****all ships smaller than them without any support.
O wait: http://killboard.net/details/201246/
This carrier didn't even have a single BS contribute to its death and it still died to less than a dozen ships, only half of which were t2!
Holy crap carriers are way too awesome, lets just delete them all from the game!
That carrier stood no chance.
That Carrier stood no chance, especially being fit as horribly as it was. The guy didn't even have the capital tank skill or at the very least T2 hardeners and T2 reps.
|
Aerick Dawn
Gallente The Arrow Project Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 02:07:00 -
[1853]
Edited by: Aerick Dawn on 23/10/2007 02:07:56 Officer fitted, pwnmobile, wtfpwned us bigtime...no wait...not one kill?
http://www.morsus-mihi.net/kb/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=59463
__________________ If I'm in a fair fight, i've done something terribly wrong. |
Rina Tsukimura
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 02:11:00 -
[1854]
Originally by: Valea Constructive Idea: Take away the carrier's fighter damage bonus for all deployed fighters after 5, carriers retain the ability to field up to 15 fighters at reduced damage, or 15 drones at no penalty.
I am a sweaty nerd in a carrier, and I would be willing to live with this compromise. Not that I would fly without support anyway.
I rather like this idea.
Specifically, for each fighter over 5 that a carrier has under its direct control adjust the carrier bonus to fighter damage such that sum damage never exceeds the damage bonus to the original 5. (For example, with 10 fighters under the direct control of the carrier any bonuses per fighter would be half what they would be with 5 deployed.) If those fighters were then assigned, reducing the number of fighters under direct control of the carrier to 5 or fewer, then the full bonuses would be applied across all fighter (both those under direct control and those assigned).
It allows carries to have their swarms, lessens their solo-dps somewhat and encourages well-organized people to deploy fighters across support fleets to achieve maximum DPS. Soft-caps and soft-restrictions are far, far better than the hard cap which was initiall proposed.
|
Acacia Everto
Wings of Redemption Black Flag Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 02:13:00 -
[1855]
Originally by: Aerick Dawn Edited by: Aerick Dawn on 23/10/2007 02:07:56 Officer fitted, pwnmobile, wtfpwned us bigtime...no wait...not one kill?
http://www.morsus-mihi.net/kb/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=59463
Excellent example of how a Carrier really isn't a solopwnmobile.
|
Tiberius Xavier
Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 02:14:00 -
[1856]
Not only will this sharply drop the demand for motherships and carriers, but this adversly affect the entire economics of the game.
Why establish capital ship yards? Why invest in expensive capital ship blueprints or books? Why bother fighting in lagfests of 500+ battleships?
I suspect that the mineral prices will drop (lower demand), ice derivatives prices will drop (lower demand for fuel), mining will be even less profitable. Consequently, this will provide a disincentive to colonizing 0.0.
|
Baun
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 02:17:00 -
[1857]
Originally by: Acacia Everto
Originally by: Icome4u
Originally by: Baun Carriers are definitely solo pwn mobiles that can wtf*****all ships smaller than them without any support.
O wait: http://killboard.net/details/201246/
This carrier didn't even have a single BS contribute to its death and it still died to less than a dozen ships, only half of which were t2!
Holy crap carriers are way too awesome, lets just delete them all from the game!
That carrier stood no chance.
That Carrier stood no chance, especially being fit as horribly as it was. The guy didn't even have the capital tank skill or at the very least T2 hardeners and T2 reps.
But he had as many as 10 fighters ... and yet somehow he did not wreck absolute havoc in the minute before he was killed by 12 cruisers. If carriers + fighters are so overpowered how is that possible?
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Moraguth
Amarr Shiva Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 02:24:00 -
[1858]
Originally by: Baun
Originally by: Acacia Everto
Originally by: Icome4u
Originally by: Baun Carriers are definitely solo pwn mobiles that can wtf*****all ships smaller than them without any support.
O wait: http://killboard.net/details/201246/
This carrier didn't even have a single BS contribute to its death and it still died to less than a dozen ships, only half of which were t2!
Holy crap carriers are way too awesome, lets just delete them all from the game!
That carrier stood no chance.
That Carrier stood no chance, especially being fit as horribly as it was. The guy didn't even have the capital tank skill or at the very least T2 hardeners and T2 reps.
But he had as many as 10 fighters ... and yet somehow he did not wreck absolute havoc in the minute before he was killed by 12 cruisers. If carriers + fighters are so overpowered how is that possible?
You mean to say, if i'm reading this right, that solopwnmobile didn't wtfbbqfishsticks any of those ships that were attacking it? Surely he was afk, or caught logging off because ANY carrier should have been able to kill dozens of ships solo before his shields were even touched. Why, I even heard, this one time, at carrier camp, that an entire FLEET of ships tried to take on a single jovian mothership and hardly anybody survived to tell the tale. Now I know the jovians are amazing and all, but surely our carriers should be worth a FEW kills.
Huh... not one cruiser was killed?
Oh, and btw... that was sarcasm. Eris and some of the other, obviously not-in-the-know people at CCP think that the can't-do-crap-alone-because-it'll-get-wtfbbq'ed-bigger-than-a-BS-ship is way too overpowered firepower wise and needs to be taken down a notch.
RUBBISH! good game [url=mm.shiva-corp.com/kb?a=pilot_detail&plt_id=5315] [/url] |
Hunter GlobaGateways
Caldari The Edge Foundation Zenith Affinity
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 02:24:00 -
[1859]
dear new guy, no disrespect to you, but here I feel for being blunt, this is probably the most stupid idea I've seen from CCP yet.
|
Gyle
Caldari Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 02:25:00 -
[1860]
Originally by: Tiberius Xavier Not only will this sharply drop the demand for motherships and carriers, but this adversly affect the entire economics of the game.
Why establish capital ship yards? Why invest in expensive capital ship blueprints or books? Why bother fighting in lagfests of 500+ battleships?
I suspect that the mineral prices will drop (lower demand), ice derivatives prices will drop (lower demand for fuel), mining will be even less profitable. Consequently, this will provide a disincentive to colonizing 0.0.
OMGZA! SIGNED WITH THE FATTEST MARKER I COULD FIND!
I hadnt even thought of all that. so there you go ccp. not only will every carrier and mom pilot quiet evee youll loose every industrialist aswell
rofl.
|
|
Robet Katrix
Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 02:30:00 -
[1861]
you dont get it do you?
this is EVE. everything affects everything else. this will have consequences far beyond just carriers.
capyards will be sold, demand drops it changes EVERYTHING.
|
Reptzo
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 02:30:00 -
[1862]
When will the devs say something? Do they not have a response? or do they truly not care what the players think? Are they not seeing this, do they not know? HOW do we reach 72 pages without any real dev response???
|
Knarfis
Shiva Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 02:31:00 -
[1863]
Where are u people coming up with this stuff?? Where do any of u get the idea that this change is going to "nerf" capitals so bad that they will become usless??
This change does not effect the capital ship what so ever. Let me say this again, This change does not effect the capital ship what so ever. It effects the fact that when the change happens, the capital pilot actually has to have others around him/her to use all of the fighters that said capital possesses. If u have enough people around to except all of the possible, delegated fighters, then how is the ship "nerfed"?? The other thing this change does is not allow the carrier to do everything by it self any longer. It never should have in the first place.
So again with what I just said, please explain to me how this change is going to kill this class of ship??? Please
**SIDE NOTE; Verone, in your first post you hit it right on the head bud. Something i tried to say myself in my first post but didnt have the room. Good job bud.
|
Xilimyth Derlin
OldBastardsPub SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 02:33:00 -
[1864]
Originally by: Reptzo When will the devs say something? Do they not have a response? or do they truly not care what the players think? Are they not seeing this, do they not know? HOW do we reach 72 pages without any real dev response???
When they have some constructive information. Up through post 1735, whomever said there's only 5% in favor (or neutral in my evaluation) wasn't very far off. Either way, even in terms of unique posters, (heh, as if it wasn't obviously) is well past the majority vote.
I'll hopefully finish the actual count tomorrow (complete with statistics and a compilation of ALL suggestions on both sides) after work. -------------------------------------------
Carrier & Mothership changes - Voice your opinion here! |
Perpello
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 02:36:00 -
[1865]
Originally by: Aerick Dawn Officer fitted, pwnmobile, wtfpwned us bigtime...no wait...not one kill?
http://www.morsus-mihi.net/kb/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=59463
Eris didn't share the location of the win button.
|
Gyle
Caldari Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 02:38:00 -
[1866]
OK GUYS PLEASE SIGN MY PETITION TO HELP CCP GET THIS MESSAGE
ANTI-CARRIER NERF PETTITION
|
Reptzo
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 02:38:00 -
[1867]
Edited by: Reptzo on 23/10/2007 02:39:21
Originally by: Xilimyth Derlin
Originally by: Reptzo When will the devs say something? Do they not have a response? or do they truly not care what the players think? Are they not seeing this, do they not know? HOW do we reach 72 pages without any real dev response???
When they have some constructive information. Up through post 1735, whomever said there's only 5% in favor (or neutral in my evaluation) wasn't very far off. Either way, even in terms of unique posters, (heh, as if it wasn't obviously) is well past the majority vote.
I'll hopefully finish the actual count tomorrow (complete with statistics and a compilation of ALL suggestions on both sides) after work.
Constructive information???? They have had like 2 days to respond, and obviously they had time to think about it before. The blog was about as uninformative as it gets. They know what they meant with what was typed, maybe they should try to tell us? All i really want is for them to say, YES we are doing it anyway, or NO it wont be as bad as you think, here is what we meant (answers go here).
All i want is for them to say something other than we are being biased and nonconstructive.
Sry, forgot to thank you for putting in the work to summarize, and the anger is not at you, you had a valid point.
|
Bon Hedus
Amarr O.E.C Legionnaire Services Ltd.
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 02:43:00 -
[1868]
Originally by: Knarfis Where are u people coming up with this stuff?? Where do any of u get the idea that this change is going to "nerf" capitals so bad that they will become usless??
This change does not effect the capital ship what so ever. Let me say this again, This change does not effect the capital ship what so ever. It effects the fact that when the change happens, the capital pilot actually has to have others around him/her to use all of the fighters that said capital possesses. If u have enough people around to except all of the possible, delegated fighters, then how is the ship "nerfed"?? The other thing this change does is not allow the carrier to do everything by it self any longer. It never should have in the first place.
So again with what I just said, please explain to me how this change is going to kill this class of ship??? Please
**SIDE NOTE; Verone, in your first post you hit it right on the head bud. Something i tried to say myself in my first post but didnt have the room. Good job bud.
Ok, you obviously haven't read any of the "constructive" posts on this issue.
1. Assigning fighters under current fleet conditions is near impossible due to lag 2. Fighters cost 20mil a pop... giving 100mil in assets to someone to care for in a fleet battle is throwing isk out the ship window 3. I can only use 5 drones with out gang members... screw any type of protection for your carrier... might as well self destruct 4. This plan increases lag in fleet battles, need more people in them to assign fighters to 5. Long lock times, worthless to try and rep non-cap ships in a fleet battle 6. Triage mode sucks donkey balls 7. Carriers aren't broken 8. Carriers can be damped into uselessness by noobs in a t1 frigate (singular frigate) 9. Carriers and Moms take a long time to get into, have a very high cost (time/isk wise) 10. Carriers can easily be killed already if they don't have a support fleet 11. Many others that if you read, you will find listed in the multitude of posts in this thread
The only thing that really should be done is to ban Moms from low sec. Have them as 0.0 ships only.
-------------------------------------- Heavy Lag Spike II belonging to EvE Cluster Node #0815 hits your Connection, wrecking your latency to 998ms
|
Vandalias
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 02:44:00 -
[1869]
Originally by: Baun Carriers are definitely solo pwn mobiles that can wtf*****all ships smaller than them without any support.
O wait: http://killboard.net/details/201246/
This carrier didn't even have a single BS contribute to its death and it still died to less than a dozen ships, only half of which were t2!
Holy crap carriers are way too awesome, lets just delete them all from the game!
"Type : Large 'Accommodation' Vestment Reconstructer I Quantity : 1"
So someone caught a terribly fit carrier probably out ratting somewhere and you're using at as an example of how carriers suck? Guess what, that pilot sucked, his fitting sucked, it says nothing about the ship itself.
|
Princess Layla
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 02:51:00 -
[1870]
Carriers are worth 1.2 Bil isk, and they cant kill battleships, for shame .... This dev blog guy claims he has no nerf bat. OMG, then I don't wanna meet one of the those guys with a nerf bat, seriously.
|
|
Beth Dei
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 02:52:00 -
[1871]
Originally by: Vandalias
Originally by: Beth Dei http://www.kos-alliance.com/killboard/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=15272
21 ship fleet killing a carrier... Whats wrong with that?
That's my point. Not a thing. That's what happens today when you bring a carrier without support. Nothing needs to be changed.
|
Vandalias
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 02:54:00 -
[1872]
Originally by: Beth Dei That's my point. Not a thing. That's what happens today when you bring a carrier without support. Nothing needs to be changed.
Fight appears to be 11 vs 28 at a POS. Other side had a carrier of their own. Thats an example of what happens when you don't have even odds more than anything.
|
Tejada One
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 02:55:00 -
[1873]
what about gallente DRONE boats? does that mean those chars they have to give up thier bonuses/dps of drones or thier ships just so a ganged carrier can do damage? that doesnt make any sense and puts a disadvantage to gallente chars in a fleet.
|
Athlonman
Amarr O.E.C
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 02:58:00 -
[1874]
This definitely must be the worst idea CCP has come up with yet.
A well tanked battleship can withstand 10 fighters engaged on it. Now your saying my 1B ship with another 500M+ of gear and 1B in skills cann't solo a battleship? Crazy....I didn't train and spend all that money to get a glorified logistics ship.
Looks like its time to move to the Moros until it gets nerfed. And I must agree with most of the posts in this topic, the issue is LAG not fighters. Having to have multiple players to control fighter groups is gonna cause more lag and will be expensive for me...lots of POS sitting delegating fighters FYI...this is becomming rediculous.
|
Elmicker
Black Sea Industries Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 02:58:00 -
[1875]
Originally by: Vandalias Fight appears to be 11 vs 28 at a POS. Other side had a carrier of their own. Thats an example of what happens when you don't have even odds more than anything.
Yes, but if you'd believe a dev blog, then a carrier without support can shred a battleship in "0.2 seconds". This just goes to show a carrier without the required support does nothing but die.
|
Reptzo
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 02:58:00 -
[1876]
Here, a carrier killed with nothing larger then a harbringer, and no heavy assualtes, or cmd ships
http://masmikillboard.com/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=3704
|
Perpello
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 03:02:00 -
[1877]
Another example of the direct nber deathbringer - this time, an Aeon mothership. Well, the Aeon died but surely it brought death to a fair portion of the attacking hostiles with its uber fighter spawns! Nope, not one attacker died.
http://www.killboard.net/details/191140/
Zulupark's 0.2s uber death bringer ratio should have killed all those attacking hostiles in under 10 seconds and the Aeon should have been victorious! If I were Tyrrax, I'd petition for a replacement Aeon, because it didn't live up to Zulupark's predicitions. And it didn't have an Eris win button either.
|
Moraguth
Amarr Shiva Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 03:06:00 -
[1878]
Originally by: Perpello Another example of the direct nber deathbringer - this time, an Aeon mothership. Well, the Aeon died but surely it brought death to a fair portion of the attacking hostiles with its uber fighter spawns! Nope, not one attacker died.
http://www.killboard.net/details/191140/
Zulupark's 0.2s uber death bringer ratio should have killed all those attacking hostiles in under 10 seconds and the Aeon should have been victorious! If I were Tyrrax, I'd petition for a replacement Aeon, because it didn't live up to Zulupark's predicitions. And it didn't have an Eris win button either.
*gasp*! Say it ain't SO!
Yeah.... I know. It was so. Eris is full of it. My carrier has never been anything remotely close to a win button. EVER. good game
|
Dazenil
Caldari The Edge Foundation Zenith Affinity
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 03:11:00 -
[1879]
Edited by: Dazenil on 23/10/2007 03:12:16 It took me about a minute to kill a 1.5 mil Rat with 15 fighters - and perfect skills. And iv tested that - on the apocalipse day or something.
and they say 0.2s for a BS - err - wrong.
so comeon - Carriers should be boosted - not nerfed!
--------------------------------------------- No Pain - No Gain
There is a man inside this vessel, who is something far worse... than anyone here has ever encountered. Should you survive this da |
oDDiTy V2
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 03:16:00 -
[1880]
Originally by: CCP Eris Discordia Verone gets a cookie
Also it would help if people could try to look passed their own bias when they reply with constructive criticism.
Takk
PS for the right bribe I can slap, kick or throw stuff at him because he sits right beside me
This, and your other reply are absolutely sickening.
So you're taking the one person's opinion that you want to hear (because you guys don't want to admit you are absolutely wrong with even letting this idea come into existence, let alone become a dev blog), and playing down everyone's replies as biased.
You later state you are TRAINING for carriers, this means that you too have zero experience in alliance combat as a carrier pilot.
|
|
dastommy79
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 03:19:00 -
[1881]
Well i have been debating wether to train a carrier first or dread. After reading this horrible idea its Advance weapons upgrades lvl5 for me.
I dont need to list reasons why this is stupid. Its blantenly obvious
no idea if i spelled that right
I driks alots |
WarGod
The Illuminati. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 03:21:00 -
[1882]
MAKE SURE YOU ALL POST ON HERE!! =)
You Know! |
Blazde
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 03:22:00 -
[1883]
Edited by: Blazde on 23/10/2007 03:23:08 Good god 73 pages noone will read my post Regardless...
Yes I LIKE this direction, carriers shouldn't be the 'new battleship', we already have battleships to be battleships HOWEVER it's another nerf on the old mothership which are now becoming near useless.
Motherships need a very serious tank buff (preferably just lots and lots of hitpoints, but some other factors like the impossibility of scrambling them in lowsec need adressing). I standby most of the points I made in this thread: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=582481 two months back. _
|
Fred 104
New Justice
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 03:26:00 -
[1884]
Originally by: Cadela Fria Edited by: Cadela Fria on 21/10/2007 22:20:56
Originally by: Pallidum Treponema Edited by: Pallidum Treponema on 21/10/2007 21:59:16
Originally by: R1pp3r Some of you don't recognize that carriers are fast replacing bs on the battle field. It is extremely frustrating in small group warfare to have a bunch of carriers and a mothership or 2 dropped on you as soon as your group agresses.
Now, THIS is a good point. I can definitely see how this can be an issue that needs to be adressed. In my opinion though, CCP is doing this completely in the wrong way.
You had me stopped and going "WHAT???" at this sentence alone Palli, and R1pp3r's post didn't help. So tell, on the matter of lag, which is better:
1. 2 battleships, open cyno, add 3 carriers..or 1 mothership or! 2. 50 battleships
Please do reason your way out of that one.
Also, I'm tired of the the whole argument about carriers and motherships having to be more support ships. Look for christ sake it was CCP who, a year ago, maybe less, said "We want carriers and motherships to step up to the frontlines and fight!" and thus introduced the <no pos hugging and delegating fighters!> dealie. Great, awesome..Now you want them back at POS'es basically. I'm sorry but this occurs to me as "1 step forward, 2 steps back".
Secondly, what in the WORLD is up with all this balancing crap in the first place? Haven't we had enough of that already? Look at what it did Amarr reconships, or look what balancing did to other games, like Planetside..or SWG, or ULTIMA ONLINE! The first love of my life in MMORPG'ing, RUINED, because some goobers decided it was a good idea to give everyone a fair, even playing ground.
IT'S FLAVOR YOU'RE KILLING FOR GODS SAKE! (sorry about the caps, but I can't say this enough). Things are not supposed to be in perfect balance and be equal, and fair, or soft and mushy on the whole world. It's supposed to be exciting, challenging - Make you take a risk for once in your otherwise reptitive EVE Life! You don't always need a comfy world where everything isn't a big thing that can't be dealt with without too much effort.
I personally NEED the feeling of "z0mG *flailing arms* it's a mothership! Run! *trips cause pants drop* ARGH! *crawls away in panic*" with the end result of me magically surviving the incident, or going down burning. It gives the game FLAVOR! Gives it life and charm. Whether or not ya'll think I'm right or I'm just spewing crap out of my mouth, I firmly believe that an unbalanced world where some things are powerful beyond reason above other gives you a horizon to try and beat it by unimaginable odds, think creatively and forge friendship/alliances to bring whatever it is, down.
What will you strive for with things such as this in place? Certainly not capital ships. "Argh a mothership!" Response: So what? Can't do anything "But..the name..it's size..the amount of fighters it has!..it's intimidating!" Reponse: Uh..nope, not anymore. *yawn* someone get a dictor, we'll take it down in a sec. "*completely disillusioned*...oh...but I thought...I..oh .." Response: Yeah well you thought wrong, wouldn't be balanced if such an awesome ship could fend for itself now would it.
How much does a carrier cost to build? 650 mil? 700 mil? How much does it cost to build a HAC? 30..40 mil? something like that? Divide that up and you have 16 HACs vs 1 carrier - Who wins? Pure hypothetically it's 1 carrier vs 16 HACs, thats it. Who wins?
For the love of all that is left great about EVE, Don't even consider alternatives for this, just SCRAP IT, PLEASE. Balanced - Is - BORING!! Period!
Post of the year tbh. PLEASE listen to this person.
|
Marlona Sky
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 03:29:00 -
[1885]
Ok. Everyone can relax, I figured it out.
Zulupark is new and got his MMORPG terminology mixed up.
Zulupark, when they told you to figure out a way to boost carriers/fighters to be in balance with the time/isk/skills put into the ship class, that means to make it better, not worse. Nerf means to make it worse. And that is what your proposed change would do, make the ship worse off than what it is. Its ok, just rethink how to BOOST the carrier class is what they said to you.
/me pats Zulupark on the back.
Its ok, you had the entire eve community ready to cancel their subscriptions over the mix up. We can all laugh about it now.
Maybe they should give you smaller project so the next time you get mixed up again, it doesn't cause such a panic.
|
Teufelhunden
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 03:29:00 -
[1886]
Now that there has been over 2100 post about this subject i'd like to see what CCP has to say.
|
Dazenil
Caldari The Edge Foundation Zenith Affinity
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 03:31:00 -
[1887]
Originally by: Blazde Edited by: Blazde on 23/10/2007 03:23:08 Good god 73 pages noone will read my post Regardless...
Yes I LIKE this direction, carriers shouldn't be the 'new battleship', we already have battleships to be battleships HOWEVER it's another nerf on the old mothership which are now becoming near useless.
Motherships need a very serious tank buff (preferably just lots and lots of hitpoints, but some other factors like the impossibility of scrambling them in lowsec need adressing). I standby most of the points I made in this thread: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=582481 two months back.
The "NEW" Battleships - huh? - No: We will have new Bs - T2 BS.
The carriers - are something different - they cant use jumpgates - they cost more - they are support ships...
I dont think you understand. =\ ---------------------------------------------
|
UPS Truck
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 03:31:00 -
[1888]
Originally by: Teufelhunden Now that there has been over 2100 post about this subject i'd like to see what CCP has to say.
Good luck. They'll probably do it anyway, despite the fact that the entirety of the logical community of this game is against it.
|
Fred 104
New Justice
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 03:33:00 -
[1889]
Originally by: UPS Truck
Originally by: Teufelhunden Now that there has been over 2100 post about this subject i'd like to see what CCP has to say.
Good luck. They'll probably do it anyway, despite the fact that the entirety of the logical community of this game is against it.
God I hope not. I know it's a total whine, but I really honestly would want my SP back. I didn't train all that crap cause I wanted to fly a glorified Oneiros.
|
Reptzo
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 03:38:00 -
[1890]
Originally by: Fred 104
Originally by: UPS Truck
Originally by: Teufelhunden Now that there has been over 2100 post about this subject i'd like to see what CCP has to say.
Good luck. They'll probably do it anyway, despite the fact that the entirety of the logical community of this game is against it.
God I hope not. I know it's a total whine, but I really honestly would want my SP back. I didn't train all that crap cause I wanted to fly a glorified Oneiros.
Yah, but the Oneiros can actually use more then one remote repper for a worthy amount of time, lock more then 6 targets, so it is useful in large groups for the logistics role, cause, well, its a logistics ship (who would have thought). Most carriers cant run remote reps for an extended period of time in battle, making them useless at helping, since they take forever to lock, and throw away capacitor using capital remote reps/transfers.
|
|
Icome4u
Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 03:39:00 -
[1891]
How to 'balance' carriers and MS w/o ****ing off 95% of the EVE community:
Simple things to be done: #1 Supercapitals can't go in low sec. #2 Carriers can't be damp. #3 When in triage mode you are immune to all form of electronic warfare and support (like siege mode). +50% cap regenaration bonus. #4 Gate jams cyno, so no more dropping capital ships on gates. #5 Capital Shield Transporter (CST) should have the same fitting requirement as the Capital Remote Armor Repairer (CRAR), #6 More range for CST and CRAM (50km max range just isn't enough). #7 50% less usage for CST and CRAM (Might be to much especially with the +50% cap regen in Triage mode)
Voila, Carriers and MS will now DPS support and Logistic (heal) support their gang/fleet! You won't also have a couple thousand people canceling their subscription.
If you are still scared that everyone will be flying carriers, then augment their price OR introduce new capital ships or new BS modules to fight capital ships.
|
Olli Hokkanen
Full Life Alternative
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 03:42:00 -
[1892]
why change something that everyone is happy with atm, SO DONT how about concentrating to the real issues |
Knarfis
Shiva Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 03:45:00 -
[1893]
Ok, you obviously haven't read any of the "constructive" posts on this issue.
1. Assigning fighters under current fleet conditions is near impossible due to lag This is a lag issue. It has nothing to do with the carrier or its abilities what so ever. invalid point.
2. Fighters cost 20mil a pop... giving 100mil in assets to someone to care for in a fleet battle is throwing isk out the ship window First choose your assignments more carefully then. This is the life of a carrier pilot. If u have the money to fly one then this shouldn't be an issue. Here is a suggestion, teach people how to use your fighters then. There yours so be responsible for them in that respect. A boss in a major corporation is responsible for all of its assets. Does that boss do all the jobs in his corporation?? Here let me answer that for you, NO. Hence why he has skilled employees. Use the same thought process with your fighters.
3. I can only use 5 drones with out gang members... screw any type of protection for your carrier... might as well self destruct. Dont fly it alone then. Simple enough. Protect your asset bud. Since WWII have u seen any aircraft carrier out in the open seas with out a number of support ships around it??
4. This plan increases lag in fleet battles, need more people in them to assign fighters to. This again has nothing to do with the proposed changes. Lag is a completely different subject. If this is such an issue dont fly the damn thing in a lag filled environment. Be accountable with your assets.
5. Long lock times, worthless to try and rep non-cap ships in a fleet battle. This is a completely true statement and i totally agree with you on this. It seriously needs to be looked at. But again this has nothing to do with the current subject matter. What u stated is comething different that needs to be looked at in a different post.
6. Triage mode sucks donkey balls. Again true but see last comment of mine. Different subject and has nothing to do with what is being talked about here.
7. Carriers aren't broken. Personal opinion aside here bud.
8. Carriers can be damped into uselessness by noobs in a t1 frigate (singular frigate) So can any other ship in this game except MOM's. Deal with it. You did with your BS and any other ship you grew up with.
9. Carriers and Moms take a long time to get into, have a very high cost (time/isk wise) This was your choice to make. How is this anyones fault?? How is this the fault of the game designers?? Where is the relevance to what you have just said to anything about the original post here?? 10. Carriers can easily be killed already if they don't have a support fleet. THEN DON'T FLY THEM WITH OUT THAT SAID SUPPORT FLEET!! Why is this so hard to understand? The carrier was not meant to be a stand alone unit like the battleship. None of the other capitals are stand alone units. Why do people think the carrier class can be a stand alone unit? Do you fly your freighter with its cargo full without support/escort in unsecured space?? If so do u think this is wise??
11. Many others that if you read, you will find listed in the multitude of posts in this thread. HUH?? Think u might have left some stuff out there bud.
Common sense people!!! Lets start using it
Knarfis
|
Icome4u
Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 03:48:00 -
[1894]
Originally by: Knarfis Edited by: Knarfis on 23/10/2007 03:46:57 Stufff
Ok... thanks for stating the oblivious. Still doesn't change the fact that CCP's idea is stupid/idiotic.
|
Knarfis
Shiva Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 03:51:00 -
[1895]
Originally by: Icome4u
Originally by: Knarfis Edited by: Knarfis on 23/10/2007 03:46:57 Stufff
Ok... thanks for stating the oblivious. Still doesn't change the fact that CCP's idea is stupid/idiotic.
That is a personal opinion with no rash relevance behind it.
God i hate these forums because of that kind of thinking.
|
Ezzaron
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 03:52:00 -
[1896]
Originally by: Knarfis Edited by: Knarfis on 23/10/2007 03:48:56 Edited by: Knarfis on 23/10/2007 03:46:57 **QUOTED BY Bon Hedus
Ok, you obviously haven't read any of the "constructive" posts on this issue.
1. Assigning fighters under current fleet conditions is near impossible due to lag This is a lag issue. It has nothing to do with the carrier or its abilities what so ever. invalid point.
2. Fighters cost 20mil a pop... giving 100mil in assets to someone to care for in a fleet battle is throwing isk out the ship window First choose your assignments more carefully then. This is the life of a carrier pilot. If u have the money to fly one then this shouldn't be an issue. Here is a suggestion, teach people how to use your fighters then. There yours so be responsible for them in that respect. A boss in a major corporation is responsible for all of its assets. Does that boss do all the jobs in his corporation?? Here let me answer that for you, NO. Hence why he has skilled employees. Use the same thought process with your fighters.
3. I can only use 5 drones with out gang members... screw any type of protection for your carrier... might as well self destruct. Don't fly it alone then. Simple enough. Protect your asset bud. Since WWII have u seen any aircraft carrier out in the open seas with out a number of support ships around it??
4. This plan increases lag in fleet battles, need more people in them to assign fighters to. This again has nothing to do with the proposed changes. Lag is a completely different subject. If this is such an issue don't fly the damn thing in a lag filled environment. Be accountable with your assets.
5. Long lock times, worthless to try and rep non-cap ships in a fleet battle. This is a completely true statement and i totally agree with you on this. It seriously needs to be looked at. But again this has nothing to do with the current subject matter. What u stated is completely different and, needs to be looked at in a different post.
6. Triage mode sucks donkey balls. Again true but see last comment of mine. Different subject and has nothing to do with what is being talked about here.
7. Carriers aren't broken. Personal opinion aside here bud.
8. Carriers can be damped into uselessness by noobs in a t1 frigate (singular frigate) So can any other ship in this game except MOM's. Deal with it. You did with your BS and any other ship you grew up with.
9. Carriers and Moms take a long time to get into, have a very high cost (time/isk wise) This was your choice to make. How is this anyones fault?? How is this the fault of the game designers?? Where is the relevance to what you have just said to anything about the original post here?? 10. Carriers can easily be killed already if they don't have a support fleet. THEN DON'T FLY THEM WITH OUT THAT SAID SUPPORT FLEET!! Why is this so hard to understand? The carrier was not meant to be a stand alone unit like the battleship. None of the other capitals are stand alone units. Why do people think the carrier class can be a stand alone unit? Do you fly your freighter with its cargo full without support/escort in unsecured space?? If so do u think this is wise??
11. Many others that if you read, you will find listed in the multitude of posts in this thread. HUH?? Think u might have left some stuff out there bud.
Common sense people!!! Lets start using it
Knarfis
That is a personal opinion with no rash relevance behind it.
God i hate these forums because of that kind of thinking.
|
Das Lol
Gallente Internet Space Fighters
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 03:53:00 -
[1897]
Edited by: Das Lol on 23/10/2007 03:53:17
Originally by: Knarfis
Originally by: Icome4u
Originally by: Knarfis Edited by: Knarfis on 23/10/2007 03:46:57 Stufff
Ok... thanks for stating the oblivious. Still doesn't change the fact that CCP's idea is stupid/idiotic.
That is a personal opinion with no rash relevance behind it.
God i hate these forums because of that kind of thinking.
I hate these forums because CCP will cherrypick the 5 uninformed, nearly pointless posts like this and use them to say 'See! You guys DID want Carriers nerfed into oblivion! Can't complain now, not being un-broken!'.
|
Acacia Everto
Wings of Redemption Black Flag Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 03:55:00 -
[1898]
Originally by: Knarfis Edited by: Knarfis on 23/10/2007 03:48:56 Edited by: Knarfis on 23/10/2007 03:46:57 **QUOTED BY Bon Hedus
Ok, you obviously haven't read any of the "constructive" posts on this issue.
1. Assigning fighters under current fleet conditions is near impossible due to lag This is a lag issue. It has nothing to do with the carrier or its abilities what so ever. invalid point.
2. Fighters cost 20mil a pop... giving 100mil in assets to someone to care for in a fleet battle is throwing isk out the ship window First choose your assignments more carefully then. This is the life of a carrier pilot. If u have the money to fly one then this shouldn't be an issue. Here is a suggestion, teach people how to use your fighters then. There yours so be responsible for them in that respect. A boss in a major corporation is responsible for all of its assets. Does that boss do all the jobs in his corporation?? Here let me answer that for you, NO. Hence why he has skilled employees. Use the same thought process with your fighters.
3. I can only use 5 drones with out gang members... screw any type of protection for your carrier... might as well self destruct. Don't fly it alone then. Simple enough. Protect your asset bud. Since WWII have u seen any aircraft carrier out in the open seas with out a number of support ships around it??
4. This plan increases lag in fleet battles, need more people in them to assign fighters to. This again has nothing to do with the proposed changes. Lag is a completely different subject. If this is such an issue don't fly the damn thing in a lag filled environment. Be accountable with your assets.
5. Long lock times, worthless to try and rep non-cap ships in a fleet battle. This is a completely true statement and i totally agree with you on this. It seriously needs to be looked at. But again this has nothing to do with the current subject matter. What u stated is completely different and, needs to be looked at in a different post.
6. Triage mode sucks donkey balls. Again true but see last comment of mine. Different subject and has nothing to do with what is being talked about here.
7. Carriers aren't broken. Personal opinion aside here bud.
8. Carriers can be damped into uselessness by noobs in a t1 frigate (singular frigate) So can any other ship in this game except MOM's. Deal with it. You did with your BS and any other ship you grew up with.
9. Carriers and Moms take a long time to get into, have a very high cost (time/isk wise) This was your choice to make. How is this anyones fault?? How is this the fault of the game designers?? Where is the relevance to what you have just said to anything about the original post here?? 10. Carriers can easily be killed already if they don't have a support fleet. THEN DON'T FLY THEM WITH OUT THAT SAID SUPPORT FLEET!! Why is this so hard to understand? The carrier was not meant to be a stand alone unit like the battleship. None of the other capitals are stand alone units. Why do people think the carrier class can be a stand alone unit? Do you fly your freighter with its cargo full without support/escort in unsecured space?? If so do u think this is wise??
11. Many others that if you read, you will find listed in the multitude of posts in this thread. HUH?? Think u might have left some stuff out there bud.
Common sense people!!! Lets start using it
Knarfis
You too interject your own personal opinions here, and dismiss valid points made by others, interspersed with jabs at others because of their opinions/experience.
|
Valea
Wrath Of Khaine
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 03:57:00 -
[1899]
Originally by: Knarfis words
Carriers require support to avoid total damnation already, which is a GOOD thing. The false idea around here is that people are using carriers to solopwn, and the fighter nerf will fix this, when in reality even a very small group of knowladgeable players can disable and kill a solo carrier. Lets say a carrier has a 3k dps tank, one damp ship takes it down to 10km (tested this with one damp ship on my chim), thats four or three gank battleships to break his tank and kill him while safely outside lock range. Hardly an impressive show of force, but enough to take a solo carrier down.
|
Tiberius Xavier
Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 04:12:00 -
[1900]
Originally by: Knarfis Common sense people!!! Lets start using it
Knarfis
Good idea. Although the proposed changes is weaken the carrier/ms, the net effect of having a support fleet (that cannot travel with the ships - where is the WII analogy now?) will inevitable require 2-6 heavy support per carrier and ms respectively. This increases a capital fleet by 3x at least, 4x more likely with a mix of capital/supercapital. (+1 for the cyno generator character)
Most capital pilots do not like assign fighters because of accountability and buggy software especially in laggy environments. Don't use them is your answer, so when do you intend to use them?
All carrier/mothership pilots have invested several months of training exclusively to get a carrier operable (myself included). If this change goes into effect, then I cannot effectively use it for combat and triage is disadvantageous. Using it now as a glorified hauler is gone if the T2 freighters come out as speced. That leaves repping poses (wow, 1 bil to rep poses). So the alternative now is to reprocess the ships to use the mins to build 8 - 10 battleships (poor moms don't have that options) and hope that the loss of 6-18 months of training doesn't diminish the fun. If it does, then most will quit playing (as is obvious).
If these arguments are insufficient for you, then perhaps we can turn the question around. Why would someone want to fly a carrier? For what use? Please be specific.
|
|
Manas
The Graduates Brutally Clever Empire
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 04:22:00 -
[1901]
Quote:
How much does a carrier cost to build? 650 mil? 700 mil? How much does it cost to build a HAC? 30..40 mil? something like that? Divide that up and you have 16 HACs vs 1 carrier - Who wins? Pure hypothetically it's 1 carrier vs 16 HACs, thats it. Who wins?
God, I hate these straw arguments. 16 HAC means 600M plus 15 extra ~10M SP pilots. A uber ship is a force multiplier, of course the relation is exponential. It's like saying who would win, 2500 Condors or a Raven.
TGRAD info |
goddessbhunter
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 04:25:00 -
[1902]
i guess all i can say now that i am 3 days from flying a carrier is if those changes were done i would be petitioning for my last 4 months back of skill training. seriously who wants to fly a 1bil isk flying logistics ship that would be of no uses to anyone not in a cap fleet. |
Acacia Everto
Wings of Redemption Black Flag Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 04:28:00 -
[1903]
Edited by: Acacia Everto on 23/10/2007 04:29:40
Originally by: Manas
Quote:
How much does a carrier cost to build? 650 mil? 700 mil? How much does it cost to build a HAC? 30..40 mil? something like that? Divide that up and you have 16 HACs vs 1 carrier - Who wins? Pure hypothetically it's 1 carrier vs 16 HACs, thats it. Who wins?
God, I hate these straw arguments. 16 HAC means 600M plus 15 extra ~10M SP pilots. A uber ship is a force multiplier, of course the relation is exponential. It's like saying who would win, 2500 Condors or a Raven.
Doesn't make them any less true, as BRUCE should know.
|
shuckstar
Gallente Hauling hogs Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 04:28:00 -
[1904]
Waiting till i find out what happens before carrying on training for carrier now, as for feedbck your idea sucks
|
Das Lol
Gallente Internet Space Fighters
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 04:31:00 -
[1905]
Originally by: shuckstar Waiting till i find out what happens before carrying on training for carrier now, as for feedbck your idea sucks
Yeah, I dislike this uncertainty immensely. Either come out and tell us that you're doing it or wash your hands of this remarkably absurd idea. I don't want to waste my time on Advanced Spaceship Command if you're going to do this garbage.
|
Reptzo
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 04:33:00 -
[1906]
Originally by: Tiberius Xavier
Originally by: Knarfis Common sense people!!! Lets start using it
Knarfis
Good idea. Although the proposed changes is weaken the carrier/ms, the net effect of having a support fleet (that cannot travel with the ships - where is the WII analogy now?) will inevitable require 2-6 heavy support per carrier and ms respectively. This increases a capital fleet by 3x at least, 4x more likely with a mix of capital/supercapital. (+1 for the cyno generator character)
Most capital pilots do not like assign fighters because of accountability and buggy software especially in laggy environments. Don't use them is your answer, so when do you intend to use them?
All carrier/mothership pilots have invested several months of training exclusively to get a carrier operable (myself included). If this change goes into effect, then I cannot effectively use it for combat and triage is disadvantageous. Using it now as a glorified hauler is gone if the T2 freighters come out as speced. That leaves repping poses (wow, 1 bil to rep poses). So the alternative now is to reprocess the ships to use the mins to build 8 - 10 battleships (poor moms don't have that options) and hope that the loss of 6-18 months of training doesn't diminish the fun. If it does, then most will quit playing (as is obvious).
If these arguments are insufficient for you, then perhaps we can turn the question around. Why would someone want to fly a carrier? For what use? Please be specific.
I totally agree. I have been training carrier skills and skills to make my carrier better for a year and a half. I choose the train this yes, but it was because of the way carriers were designed and worked. Now the devs want to change the way carriers work. In a very drastic way. How is it my fault that my carrier is suddenly a different ship??????? Answer that Knarfis! I use my carrier for what most would consider carebear actions, i protect mining barges in low sec. Yes, lame, i know. But its a game and i choose to play the way i do. So, with the new changes, i cant protect them, cause fighters are useless against anything cruiser or smaller. I use regular tech 2 drones. I use the carrier to protect the barges cause its big and intimidating, and the solo pirate wont mess with it. But i am very aware of its weakness, i have almost lost it a few times. The only thing that saved me was some fleet support! Not sure where i am goin with this anymore, but carriers are not solopwnmobiles! I trained long and hard o make my carrier a badass tanking fighting ship that can defend people that cant defend themselves (barges). Now CCP thinks its too powerful. Yah, i can just sit there in some other ship, but nothing that is not a capital will really deter pirates.
1 year and a half OF MY REAL LIFE. To train for something i liked, something i thought was going to be that same ship for .. well. .. forever! I cant have that time of my life back, to train for something else cause i didn't know the devs were going to randomly change their minds one day and totally rework carriers.
Yes its a game, yah i can move on. But what if it was the thing you loved? What if reams of one day getting a mothership was the only reason you kept playing?? Only to find out that the ship you wanted is now worthless for the reason you wanted it. You would be upset too. And like posted by someone else, if this change was made like a month after carriers were released cause carriers were broken, that would not be a problem. But it has been like this for almost 2 years, its a little late in the game to change it!!!!
|
Vishous
Port Royal Independent Kontractors Atrum Tempestas Foedus
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 04:36:00 -
[1907]
Edited by: Vishous on 23/10/2007 04:38:04 I may not fly a carrier, but after reading that blog, I knew it was not the solution. Carriers are anything but IWIN ships. Everyone in EVE knows that (however, some people in CCP apparently do not). Any problems caused by carriers would be more from the drone spamming down in the south, which has to do more with server issues then carrier issues.
We have to remember, they threw this out to us as an idea (though they seemed a bit to confident in implementing it).
"Well, we have an idea, and before you go ballistic remember that this is an idea and weære still working on it:"
I would like to give possible suggestions of ideas for any type of carrier change, but I have none to give, since, as I stated, I have no direct experience with using them. I just hope CCP has better ideas that would involve less /nerfbat and more /impr*CRASH*
|
Maverick McDougel
Shiva Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 04:42:00 -
[1908]
kids, let's use this as an example why drugs are bad. ok??
|
Baun
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 04:49:00 -
[1909]
Edited by: Baun on 23/10/2007 04:50:26
Originally by: Knarfis
10. Carriers can easily be killed already if they don't have a support fleet. THEN DON'T FLY THEM WITH OUT THAT SAID SUPPORT FLEET!! Why is this so hard to understand? The carrier was not meant to be a stand alone unit like the battleship. None of the other capitals are stand alone units. Why do people think the carrier class can be a stand alone unit? Do you fly your freighter with its cargo full without support/escort in unsecured space?? If so do u think this is wise?? Knarfis
I don't get it. If carriers ALREADY cannot do anything without a support fleet and you are ADMITTING this, then what the hell is this nerf for?
If a carrier already needs the support ships on grid to live, then what does requiring that he assign fighters to them realistically accomplish?
The answer is NOTHING. This is a fix directed toward a non-existant problem.
CCP's apparent worry that fleets will become all capitals is mostly unfounded (Capitals cannot move around freely, Capitals are slow and easily outmaneuvered, Capitals cannot get into cyno jammed systems without the aid of a BS fleet by default), but to the extent that it is real it shouldn't be resolved by retroactively removing two classes of ships from the game after more than two years.
Instead of redoing two years of work, why don't you impliment NEW features to try to stem the perhaps-nonexistant tide? Why has there been no attempt at this?
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Das Lol
Gallente Internet Space Fighters
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 04:50:00 -
[1910]
Edited by: Das Lol on 23/10/2007 04:51:36 I find the developer response in this thread highly disturbing.
74 pages. Like, what, four responses? And they were sarcastic, insulting ones at that.
You're talking about neutering an entire ship class. One that takes a very long time to train for, at that. Capital pilots are your core subscriber base, CCP.
How about responding with details? Responding with real answers to our concerns? Maybe then we wouldn't be ready to revolt.
You're just going to do this no matter what.
I have to congratulate you on one thing though, CCP. Now many of us wouldn't answer 't20' if someone asked who the least popular dev ever was.
|
|
Coolgamer
Minmatar Res Publica R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 04:56:00 -
[1911]
Originally by: Vishous Edited by: Vishous on 23/10/2007 04:38:04 I may not fly a carrier, but after reading that blog, I knew it was not the solution. Carriers are anything but IWIN ships. Everyone in EVE knows that (however, some people in CCP apparently do not). Any problems caused by carriers would be more from the drone spamming down in the south, which has to do more with server issues then carrier issues.
We have to remember, they threw this out to us as an idea (though they seemed a bit to confident in implementing it).
"Well, we have an idea, and before you go ballistic remember that this is an idea and weære still working on it:"
I would like to give possible suggestions of ideas for any type of carrier change, but I have none to give, since, as I stated, I have no direct experience with using them. I just hope CCP has better ideas that would involve less /nerfbat and more /impr*CRASH*
Hehe lag issues you said? there is no lagg...
And even if this is an idea i would like CCP to admit that if people just say NO, it's a NO, as simple as NO could possibly ever means, and telling people to not just say NO but be more constructive about their NO is NOnsense...
So i will be more constructive about my NO.
NO : absolutly NO, I would say NO, NO way, answer is NO, certainly NOt, Not at all, i think NOt...
SAVE carrier and Moms |
Daan Sai
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 05:03:00 -
[1912]
How about this for a game mechanic idea:
Make the drone/fighter control module cpu bonuses depend on the carrier being comand linked into a fleet with an FC- rationale: to use distributed computing power. When used as a solo/gang setup you fall back to 5 at a time, in a supported fleet they operate as now, without change.
The suggested nerf of what should logically be one of the major tactical and even strategic forces in fleet warefare appears to be naive and simplistic - taking balancing limits that were used on other simpler ships (ie the 5 drones for drone ships) and applying it to potentially the most complex element of a fleet operation.
Let the carriers operate as they do now in organised fleets, and make them have limitations when used solo, not just a blanket cut back across the board.
Giving away hard earned fighters for others to control is so against the grain in a situation where the pilot has made a *lot* of personal sacrifice to get there in the first place-- it is a very hard pill to swallow. Even if it did make sense - which it doesn't - where are the super cpu requirements of drone control units on the other fleet mate's ships - what makes the other non-carriers capable or qualified to control the fighters?
Let the T2 freighters and Roquals do the luggage - carriers should be fleet command ships, but don't nerf complex ships in simplisitic ways.
my 2c Daan
|
Knarfis
Shiva Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 05:04:00 -
[1913]
Originally by: Reptzo
Originally by: Tiberius Xavier
Originally by: Knarfis Common sense people!!! Lets start using it
I totally agree. I have been training carrier skills and skills to make my carrier better for a year and a half. I choose the train this yes, but it was because of the way carriers were designed and worked. Now the devs want to change the way carriers work. In a very drastic way. How is it my fault that my carrier is suddenly a different ship??????? Answer that Knarfis!
Ok let me try to. How are they changing it so drastically that you cant use it like you have in the past?? You can still protect your barges with it. Cant you?? When it comes to pirates, guess what?? That is part of the game and no matter how big of a ship u have, with out the proper support you will always loose your ship. That is life in low sec and if u get there, 0.0 space. If u want the ever large shield of protection then go mine in high sec space where lady Concord will protect you. If you are relying on your carrier to solely protect your mining barges in low sec space then I have to say that is a very irresponsible action and that you should look into a larger group of support for your mining operations. The Devs are not changing the ship in what you call a drastic way by changing the way the drones are used and assigned out to others. That is not drastic at all. Let me point something out. If u are an old enough character then you would remember the Thorax and how it was before its big nerf. The nerf that took its drone bad down so that it couldn't field 10 medium drones. The Devs found that to be a bit over kill for a tech 1 attack cruiser. Is the ship, since then worthless?? NO. People still use it and love it as I still do. I wasn't nerfed, it was brought back into proportion with the rest of the game. They are doing the same with the Carrier. You and the rest of EVE will survive this and adjust accordingly. In my corp we dont do any mining unless all the gates are locked down and we have plenty of ships to take on the worst case scenario. This is life in 0.0 space. For you in low sec you might want to take a tip from what I just said. There is nothing wrong with using your carrier -in my eyes- for protecting your miners. But your carrier needs protection too. Its called checks and balances. I hope I have answered your question.
Knarfis
|
Isabel Sweet
Amarr Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 05:07:00 -
[1914]
Edited by: Isabel Sweet on 23/10/2007 05:11:43 This nerf is absolutely not needed...instead maybe u can look into POS and drone coding. If the drone lag is a little (and only a little) less from last patches, The pos still freeze the screen for loading. Why is doin that if the pos is EMPTY?
Want balancing? maybe u can look into AMARR? ...maybe amarr will not be useless in 1 vs 1 at same classes of ships? (except curse, but a succesful curse use damps instead of what is intended to use).
And about knarfis said....motherships are not intended to use only 5 fighters alone. Because simply, in laggy environment new assignment of fighters is impossible. And yes LAG EXIST. We are dealing with it, reds are doing that, goons are doing that, no matter how hard are we smacking eachother. We are battling with 1-5 minutes of lag each time and somehow we are still liking that.
|
Das Lol
Gallente Internet Space Fighters
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 05:10:00 -
[1915]
Originally by: Knarfis If u are an old enough character then you would remember the Thorax and how it was before its big nerf. The nerf that took its drone bad down so that it couldn't field 10 medium drones. The Devs found that to be a bit over kill for a tech 1 attack cruiser. Is the ship, since then worthless?? NO. People still use it and love it as I still do.
Problem: the Thorax isn't a capital ship with the main purpose of carrying an exceptionally large amount of drones into a fight.
|
Fred 104
New Justice
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 05:16:00 -
[1916]
Originally by: Knarfis Edited by: Knarfis on 23/10/2007 05:06:49
Originally by: Reptzo
Originally by: Tiberius Xavier
Originally by: Knarfis Common sense people!!! Lets start using it
I totally agree. I have been training carrier skills and skills to make my carrier better for a year and a half. I choose the train this yes, but it was because of the way carriers were designed and worked. Now the devs want to change the way carriers work. In a very drastic way. How is it my fault that my carrier is suddenly a different ship??????? Answer that Knarfis!
Ok let me try to. How are they changing it so drastically that you cant use it like you have in the past?? You can still protect your barges with it. Cant you?? When it comes to pirates, guess what?? That is part of the game and no matter how big of a ship u have, with out the proper support you will always loose your ship. That is life in low sec and if u get there, 0.0 space. If u want the ever large shield of protection then go mine in high sec space where lady Concord will protect you. If you are relying on your carrier to solely protect your mining barges in low sec space then I have to say that is a very irresponsible action and that you should look into a larger group of support for your mining operations. The Devs are not changing the ship in what you call a drastic way by changing the way the drones are used and assigned out to others. That is not drastic at all. Let me point something out. If u are an old enough character then you would remember the Thorax and how it was before its big nerf. The nerf that took its drone bad down so that it couldn't field 10 medium drones. The Devs found that to be a bit over kill for a tech 1 attack cruiser. Is the ship, since then worthless?? NO. People still use it and love it as I still do. I wasn't nerfed, it was brought back into proportion with the rest of the game. They are doing the same with the Carrier. You and the rest of EVE will survive this and adjust accordingly. In my corp we dont do any mining unless all the gates are locked down and we have plenty of ships to take on the worst case scenario. This is life in 0.0 space. For you in low sec you might want to take a tip from what I just said. There is nothing wrong with using your carrier -in my eyes- for protecting your miners. But your carrier needs protection too. Its called checks and balances. I hope I have answered your question.
Knarfis
I'm sorry, but this is a totally erroneous argument. Firstly, you base it off of the opinon that carriers are overpowered, a point which I daresay most of us don't support. And secondly, the thorax used 8 heavies before the nerf. If YOU are an old enough character then YOU would remember the Thorax and how it was before its big nerf.
|
Cadela Fria
Amarr Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 05:16:00 -
[1917]
Originally by: Manas
Quote:
How much does a carrier cost to build? 650 mil? 700 mil? How much does it cost to build a HAC? 30..40 mil? something like that? Divide that up and you have 16 HACs vs 1 carrier - Who wins? Pure hypothetically it's 1 carrier vs 16 HACs, thats it. Who wins?
God, I hate these straw arguments. 16 HAC means 600M plus 15 extra ~10M SP pilots. A uber ship is a force multiplier, of course the relation is exponential. It's like saying who would win, 2500 Condors or a Raven.
And I don't like straw minded people with nothing better to do then try and sound clever where they obviously have their butt attached to their brain. Whether you like it or not Manas, the argumant is true and relevant, and I honestly thought you of all people knew better.
I make solid arguments against the idea, I do so constructively and I constantly urge people not to attack Zulupark as he is just the messenger, and this isn't his idea alone. If you have a problem with that, then I say, too bad, go troll somewhere else.
|
Vandalias
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 05:21:00 -
[1918]
Edited by: Vandalias on 23/10/2007 05:22:54
Originally by: Cadela Fria And I don't like straw minded people with nothing better to do then try and sound clever where they obviously have their butt attached to their brain. Whether you like it or not Manas, the argumant is true and relevant, and I honestly thought you of all people knew better.
I make solid arguments against the idea, I do so constructively and I constantly urge people not to attack Zulupark as he is just the messenger, and this isn't his idea alone. If you have a problem with that, then I say, too bad, go troll somewhere else.
Whaa!! my carrier costs infinite times more than 1 billion ibis, but the 1 billion ibis still can kill my carrier....
Its not a valid argument since the situations are completely different. 1 carrier is not equivalent to 10 hacs for the simple fact that the 10 hacs require 10 pilots to fly them, so comparing them isn't useful.
Edit: Technically it might be closer to a false analogy than an actual strawman if you prefer.
|
UGWidowmaker
Caldari The Ankou The Reckoning.
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 05:29:00 -
[1919]
cariers are allready easy to kill... fighters are easy to escapefrom... this nerf willnot hit tq in my game time... OMFG
I am the widowmaker stay tuned.
|
Cadela Fria
Amarr Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 05:32:00 -
[1920]
Originally by: Vandalias Edited by: Vandalias on 23/10/2007 05:22:54
Originally by: Cadela Fria And I don't like straw minded people with nothing better to do then try and sound clever where they obviously have their butt attached to their brain. Whether you like it or not Manas, the argumant is true and relevant, and I honestly thought you of all people knew better.
I make solid arguments against the idea, I do so constructively and I constantly urge people not to attack Zulupark as he is just the messenger, and this isn't his idea alone. If you have a problem with that, then I say, too bad, go troll somewhere else.
Whaa!! my carrier costs infinite times more than 1 billion ibis, but the 1 billion ibis still can kill my carrier....
Its not a valid argument since the situations are completely different. 1 carrier is not equivalent to 10 hacs for the simple fact that the 10 hacs require 10 pilots to fly them, so comparing them isn't useful.
Edit: Technically it might be closer to a false analogy than an actual strawman if you prefer.
The fact that it requires 10 or whatever amount of pilots is not my problem, nor something I have to even worry about. It sounds like to me like you want to equate 1 ship, 1 pilot vs 1 ship, 1 pilot as being the only thing right to compare as what can defeat a carrier, or any other ship for that matter.
If you don't see the problem with that kind of reasoning, then I have nothing further to say.
|
|
Yaay
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 05:33:00 -
[1921]
Edited by: Yaay on 23/10/2007 05:34:23
Originally by: Knarfis Edited by: Knarfis on 23/10/2007 05:06:49
Originally by: Reptzo
Originally by: Tiberius Xavier
Originally by: Knarfis Common sense people!!! Lets start using it
I totally agree. I have been training carrier skills and skills to make my carrier better for a year and a half. I choose the train this yes, but it was because of the way carriers were designed and worked. Now the devs want to change the way carriers work. In a very drastic way. How is it my fault that my carrier is suddenly a different ship??????? Answer that Knarfis!
Ok let me try to. How are they changing it so drastically that you cant use it like you have in the past?? You can still protect your barges with it. Cant you?? When it comes to pirates, guess what?? That is part of the game and no matter how big of a ship u have, with out the proper support you will always loose your ship. That is life in low sec and if u get there, 0.0 space. If u want the ever large shield of protection then go mine in high sec space where lady Concord will protect you. If you are relying on your carrier to solely protect your mining barges in low sec space then I have to say that is a very irresponsible action and that you should look into a larger group of support for your mining operations. The Devs are not changing the ship in what you call a drastic way by changing the way the drones are used and assigned out to others. That is not drastic at all. Let me point something out. If u are an old enough character then you would remember the Thorax and how it was before its big nerf. The nerf that took its drone bad down so that it couldn't field 10 medium drones. The Devs found that to be a bit over kill for a tech 1 attack cruiser. Is the ship, since then worthless?? NO. People still use it and love it as I still do. I wasn't nerfed, it was brought back into proportion with the rest of the game. They are doing the same with the Carrier. You and the rest of EVE will survive this and adjust accordingly. In my corp we dont do any mining unless all the gates are locked down and we have plenty of ships to take on the worst case scenario. This is life in 0.0 space. For you in low sec you might want to take a tip from what I just said. There is nothing wrong with using your carrier -in my eyes- for protecting your miners. But your carrier needs protection too. Its called checks and balances. I hope I have answered your question.
Knarfis
dude, i'll answer you like i always have, It takes experience to understand how to fly a ship. You're at what, about 10 million skillpoints now and have an ishtar as your experience with drones. In no way whatsoever does that simulate what carriers are or do.
People who have flow these things know that this is the virtual end of not only these ships, but their will to play the game anymore. There has been so much money, time and skills invested in them, that to change the ship so much, and so poorly is an insult to the player base who have used them, or who are directly affected by this change.
Carriers are not the problem here, what's most frustrating is that the Developers of the game, who are supposed to understand how the game works far better than us, are just appearing incompetent and arrogant at this stage.
|
Atapine
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 05:36:00 -
[1922]
Originally by: DRDNOUGHT Guys.... we are talking about carriers here yes ? 10 times the price of a typical battleship.... months more of skill training.... the whole point of a carrier is its superior fighter and drone carrying power as well as its support capabilities. If it is to be stepped down to just a support vessel, I as well as many others Im sure, are going to have to rethink its value when compared with the training time required as well as the large ISK investment. A carrier is a tactical vessel first and a support vessel second and we cant go nerfing It because it is successful at what it was designed to do. If We need to change the balance then we need to do the same as we would do in the real world when faced with a superior weapon.....invent something that can disable it easier.......
!!! APPLAUDS DRDNOUGHT'S EXCELLENT IDEA.. BIGGER AND BADDER KILLING MACHINES !!!
|
Alenar Rumanev
Minmatar The Nine Gates
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 05:37:00 -
[1923]
Edited by: Alenar Rumanev on 23/10/2007 05:38:18
Originally by: Knarfis Edited by: Knarfis on 23/10/2007 05:06:49
Ok let me try to. How are they changing it so drastically that you cant use it like you have in the past?? You can still protect your barges with it. Cant you?? When it comes to pirates, guess what?? That is part of the game and no matter how big of a ship u have, with out the proper support you will always loose your ship. That is life in low sec and if u get there, 0.0 space. If u want the ever large shield of protection then go mine in high sec space where lady Concord will protect you. If you are relying on your carrier to solely protect your mining barges in low sec space then I have to say that is a very irresponsible action and that you should look into a larger group of support for your mining operations. The Devs are not changing the ship in what you call a drastic way by changing the way the drones are used and assigned out to others. That is not drastic at all. Let me point something out. If u are an old enough character then you would remember the Thorax and how it was before its big nerf. The nerf that took its drone bad down so that it couldn't field 10 medium drones. The Devs found that to be a bit over kill for a tech 1 attack cruiser. Is the ship, since then worthless?? NO. People still use it and love it as I still do. I wasn't nerfed, it was brought back into proportion with the rest of the game. They are doing the same with the Carrier. You and the rest of EVE will survive this and adjust accordingly. In my corp we dont do any mining unless all the gates are locked down and we have plenty of ships to take on the worst case scenario. This is life in 0.0 space. For you in low sec you might want to take a tip from what I just said. There is nothing wrong with using your carrier -in my eyes- for protecting your miners. But your carrier needs protection too. Its called checks and balances. I hope I have answered your question.
Knarfis
Did you even play before RMR? The reason the Thorax was so feared was that the ship could field 8 heavy drones. 8 heavy drones, on a cruiser (and people whine about the Myrm now)! A t1 cruiser, with small blasters, 8 Ogre IIs, and a 1600 rt plate could kill most battleships solo. For the cost of 20m or less. It was nerfed because of drone lag and because a t1 cruiser should not be able to wtfpwn a ship 5 times its cost every time (and it made the Domi completely useless). You are comparing apples and oranges. The time it takes to get into the plated 'rax setup of yore was ~2 months. The time it takes to fly a carrier is at least 8. And the carrier costs 10 to 15 times the cost of a tier 2 BS. You'd think that being able to do the same damage as said BS was reasonable, given the great cost. If this nerf stays and the myrm does not get nerfed, you will have a BC with nearly the same solo drone damage as a carrier (475 ogreII maxed vs 500 fighter maxed). And you can buy 30 - 40 myrms for the cost of a carrier.
Honestly, what will the point of this ship be if its damage gets slaughtered? Current and proposed ships will be able to fill every other one of its rolls better, and for less cost.
|
Vandalias
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 05:39:00 -
[1924]
Originally by: Cadela Fria The fact that it requires 10 or whatever amount of pilots is not my problem, nor something I have to even worry about. It sounds like to me like you want to equate 1 ship, 1 pilot vs 1 ship, 1 pilot as being the only thing right to compare as what can defeat a carrier, or any other ship for that matter.
If you don't see the problem with that kind of reasoning, then I have nothing further to say.
No, I'm not saying you have to equate it that way, I'm saying you have to factor in other variables into the equation than pure cost when comparing a group of ships with a cost of X to a single ship with a cost of X. Just because ship A costs the same or more than group of ships B by itself is meaningless.
For example 1 billion ibis with their 1 gun are completely free and will obliterate any ship in game, however it is practically impossible to gather 1 billion people to pilot those 1 billion ibis. As far as the hac example the problem isn't nearly as extreme, but its still harder to gather together 10 pilots than it is to get 1 pilot.
|
Faeryl Heaven
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 05:42:00 -
[1925]
Edited by: Faeryl Heaven on 23/10/2007 05:42:33 there is a petition about it, if we can see as many /signed there as the number of NO we have here would be nice.
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=619601
..
|
SpaceSlag
Dragons Of Redemption Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 05:46:00 -
[1926]
If these changes go into effect, screw it. Everybody might as well sell every last carrier/mother ship. Take the mods off, sell them too. Sell the fighters. Kep the fuel and with the extra cash, buy Large Towers. CCP, welcome to the future... POS Spammage on a scale you've never, EVER, seen before. Alliance HQ's all over will say to themselves, "Hrmmm, that constellation has two stations in it. It has 2946 moons, too. Let's put a tower on every single moon."
B O R I N G ! ! !
There's a lot to say about an asset in a corp who skills up to fly a carrier with all the bells and whistles. There's even more to say about a person who puts it on the front line day-in, day-out. So let's look at all the GREAT things you take away from the game if this change goes into effect:
1. Defending one's own carrier
2. Any and all serious tactical purpose for a carrier
3. Any reason to train up for triage? Nope. Not investing in a 2bil or more logistics ship.
4. "The Calvary"
5. Stepping stones to Titans.
6. The Fighter builder's market.
7. Advanced Drone Interfacing. Why?
8. Truly EPIC fleet battles.
9. Any reason for jump freighters - you just made 2 ships that do the EXACT SAME role.
10. Any good sized goal for people to work towards, thus making game darn-near pointless and WILL reduce player base - as seen here:
I'd now like to talk about the feasibility of such a change. Honestly Developers. By 'Developers', I mean every, single last one of you guys. Make 2000 clients trying to bide for a place in one system at one time. Additionally, have 4000 more elsewhere in the same constellation. Now you have a situation like JV1V. Ok, you've got the infrastructure going, everybody trying to login, start gangs, get into position, set squads into wings, and the different wings into the different fleets. Now begin to assign fighters in both types of dynamics (the one you are proposing, and the one currently on TQ). If you succeed without crashing the server, over and over and over and still yet over again - and get all that structure done within 15 minutes of server coming back up - then you deserve your pay. However, if not which will probably be the case, dont change the structure of fleet engagements. Don't make it an even bigger headache for Fleet Commanders. Don't ruin people's goals and aspirations. Don't make carriers sole role into a fancy looking jump freighter. Better yet,
JUST DON'T DO IT!!!
Become a pirate without fear of death!
|
Cadela Fria
Amarr Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 05:46:00 -
[1927]
Originally by: Vandalias
Originally by: Cadela Fria The fact that it requires 10 or whatever amount of pilots is not my problem, nor something I have to even worry about. It sounds like to me like you want to equate 1 ship, 1 pilot vs 1 ship, 1 pilot as being the only thing right to compare as what can defeat a carrier, or any other ship for that matter.
If you don't see the problem with that kind of reasoning, then I have nothing further to say.
No, I'm not saying you have to equate it that way, I'm saying you have to factor in other variables into the equation than pure cost when comparing a group of ships with a cost of X to a single ship with a cost of X. Just because ship A costs the same or more than group of ships B by itself is meaningless.
For example 1 billion ibis with their 1 gun are completely free and will obliterate any ship in game, however it is practically impossible to gather 1 billion people to pilot those 1 billion ibis. As far as the hac example the problem isn't nearly as extreme, but its still harder to gather together 10 pilots than it is to get 1 pilot.
*scratches head*...Well, honestly Sir...uhmm..That still leaves me saying the same thing. Gathering 10 -> 16 pilots is the problem of the individual corporation/alliance, and thus not something I have to worry about.
I'd dare say it's a lot easier finding 10 HAC pilots versus 1 carrier pilot. However, even if you argue that it isn't, what I am saying is based purely on DPS and Cost, and was a comparison of ships. This makes it pure hypothetical, and thus has no need for involving pilots. If you want to go that far, then the 1 Carrier pilot might be incompetent, and die to 1 HAC, why? He's sitting at a planet, AFK, with no repper on, there you go.
It's not really relevant in an example of Price and DPS comparison. Ya see?
|
Vandalias
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 05:50:00 -
[1928]
Originally by: Cadela Fria *scratches head*...Well, honestly Sir...uhmm..That still leaves me saying the same thing. Gathering 10 -> 16 pilots is the problem of the individual corporation/alliance, and thus not something I have to worry about.
I'd dare say it's a lot easier finding 10 HAC pilots versus 1 carrier pilot. However, even if you argue that it isn't, what I am saying is based purely on DPS and Cost, and was a comparison of ships. This makes it pure hypothetical, and thus has no need for involving pilots. If you want to go that far, then the 1 Carrier pilot might be incompetent, and die to 1 HAC, why? He's sitting at a planet, AFK, with no repper on, there you go.
It's not really relevant in an example of Price and DPS comparison. Ya see?
If thats your stance then you have to concede that ibis are insanely overpowered since they are free. 1 billion ibis cost less than 1 carrier, but do significantly more dps. After all its easier to get a character into an ibis than it is a carrier. As far as getting 1 billion people to fly those ships thats not our problem, so nerf nerf nerf.
If you want to limit it to purely hypothetical arguments thats fine, but it becomes much less useful in the end.
|
Icome4u
Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 05:54:00 -
[1929]
Originally by: Vandalias Edited by: Vandalias on 23/10/2007 05:22:54
Originally by: Cadela Fria And I don't like straw minded people with nothing better to do then try and sound clever where they obviously have their butt attached to their brain. Whether you like it or not Manas, the argumant is true and relevant, and I honestly thought you of all people knew better.
I make solid arguments against the idea, I do so constructively and I constantly urge people not to attack Zulupark as he is just the messenger, and this isn't his idea alone. If you have a problem with that, then I say, too bad, go troll somewhere else.
Whaa!! my carrier costs infinite times more than 1 billion ibis, but the 1 billion ibis still can kill my carrier....
Its not a valid argument since the situations are completely different. 1 carrier is not equivalent to 10 hacs for the simple fact that the 10 hacs require 10 pilots to fly them, so comparing them isn't useful.
Edit: Technically it might be closer to a false analogy than an actual strawman if you prefer.
Dude you have already been warned to stop trolling. LEAVE.
|
Deckerx
Beasts of Burden YouWhat
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 05:55:00 -
[1930]
Honestly i can tell that the few people who, have agreed with this change are the people not flying mother ships or carriers. This change will change the game so dramatically that im sure many players will quit this game. i personally know many player who have spend years saving to buy a precious motherships and now they are basically worthless, what is the point of a mothership to have a ew bonus if they are not going to a actually battle situation, none i suppose, and dont tell me they can still hit a fight and just be used logistically. Becuase im not bring a 30 to 40 billion isk ship so i can rep 20 bs wouth maybe 10b, Logicial correct. ccp carriers and moms are already nefted in alot of ways. There have been more MOM kills since the dictor neft than ever before in eve history, that should say that mom pilots have to watch what they are doing, Even with his 20 fighters TT's Aeon Loss was epic, no capitals only dictors and alot of bs and bc took down a MOM in less than 10mins, and he got barely any kills, it obvious that moms are not end all and be all anymore.
Bottom line is this, 1 lachesis 5 bs can kill 1 carrier easily. Does it make sense not much, 3b worth of ships with each pilot having 1/3 the sp you have taking you down, and you are helpless while dieing. Why make carriers and moms worse. Moms are suppose to be the pride of there faction and allinace. If they have no firepower and logistically only the same as a carrier, what would be the point.
PLEASE SAVE THIS GAME; AND DONT MAKE MISTAKES LIKE THIS ONE POTENTIALLY COULD BE, REMEMBER THE FAITHFUL MISTAKE OF TAKING DOWN THE SELL ORDER FORUMS ;).
|
|
Cadela Fria
Amarr Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 06:00:00 -
[1931]
Originally by: Vandalias
Originally by: Cadela Fria *scratches head*...Well, honestly Sir...uhmm..That still leaves me saying the same thing. Gathering 10 -> 16 pilots is the problem of the individual corporation/alliance, and thus not something I have to worry about.
I'd dare say it's a lot easier finding 10 HAC pilots versus 1 carrier pilot. However, even if you argue that it isn't, what I am saying is based purely on DPS and Cost, and was a comparison of ships. This makes it pure hypothetical, and thus has no need for involving pilots. If you want to go that far, then the 1 Carrier pilot might be incompetent, and die to 1 HAC, why? He's sitting at a planet, AFK, with no repper on, there you go.
It's not really relevant in an example of Price and DPS comparison. Ya see?
If thats your stance then you have to concede that ibis are insanely overpowered since they are free. 1 billion ibis cost less than 1 carrier, but do significantly more dps. After all its easier to get a character into an ibis than it is a carrier. As far as getting 1 billion people to fly those ships thats not our problem, so nerf nerf nerf.
If you want to limit it to purely hypothetical arguments thats fine, but it becomes much less useful in the end.
I don't have to concede anything, as I'm not saying ANYTHING is overpowered. I'm comparing ships and saying it's weighed perfectly the way it is.
What I said was pure hypothetical was the situation of 16 HACs vs 1 Carrier, not the actual fact that it matches pure costwise and DPS wise, oh no Sir, that's a solid fact, and not impossible to do, at all.
|
Vandalias
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 06:05:00 -
[1932]
Originally by: Cadela Fria I don't have to concede anything, as I'm not saying ANYTHING is overpowered. I'm comparing ships and saying it's weighed perfectly the way it is.
What I said was pure hypothetical was the situation of 16 HACs vs 1 Carrier, not the actual fact that it matches pure costwise and DPS wise, oh no Sir, that's a solid fact, and not impossible to do, at all.
Well cost DPS comparison nothing beats free. As you say its purely hypothetical and not really applicable to actual game balance since there is a significant advantage to be had with having more powerful ships since the logistics of getting people together to actually fly them is often more difficult than getting the ships themselves.
As long as you're willing to keep it hypothetical the argument is less problematic though.
|
Kwint Sommer
Incoherent Inc Otaku Invasion
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 06:07:00 -
[1933]
Originally by: Das Lol Edited by: Das Lol on 23/10/2007 04:51:36 I find the developer response in this thread highly disturbing.
74 pages. Like, what, four responses? And they were sarcastic, insulting ones at that.
You're talking about neutering an entire ship class. One that takes a very long time to train for, at that. Capital pilots are your core subscriber base, CCP.
How about responding with details? Responding with real answers to our concerns? Maybe then we wouldn't be ready to revolt.
You're just going to do this no matter what.
I have to congratulate you on one thing though, CCP. Now many of us wouldn't answer 't20' if someone asked who the least popular dev ever was.
I hate to say it but I agree, after telling me the last year and a half of highly specialized training was for nothing I actually hate Zulu more than t20. Personally I don't plan on settling for the revocation of these plans, I want Zulu removed from anything to do with development as well.
Sig removed. Please keep sigs to 400x120 pixels and 24000 bytes in size or less. -Kaemonn |
Cadela Fria
Amarr Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 06:09:00 -
[1934]
Edited by: Cadela Fria on 23/10/2007 06:12:28
Originally by: Vandalias
Originally by: Cadela Fria I don't have to concede anything, as I'm not saying ANYTHING is overpowered. I'm comparing ships and saying it's weighed perfectly the way it is.
What I said was pure hypothetical was the situation of 16 HACs vs 1 Carrier, not the actual fact that it matches pure costwise and DPS wise, oh no Sir, that's a solid fact, and not impossible to do, at all.
Well cost DPS comparison nothing beats free. As you say its purely hypothetical and not really applicable to actual game balance since there is a significant advantage to be had with having more powerful ships since the logistics of getting people together to actually fly them is often more difficult than getting the ships themselves.
As long as you're willing to keep it hypothetical the argument is less problematic though.
You're missing what I'm saying..all that was hypothetical was the SITUATION of a 1 carrier being engaged by 16 HACS. It will remain hypothetical until I actually go out and find a carrier kill involving said amount of HACs or less - Which I could as they do exist, but I would think you'd understand that. Apparently not though...
It IS applicable to the game..and honestly Sir, if YOU can't field ATLEAST 10 -> 16 people in support ships to fight a CAPITAL SHIP, then you have no business winning over one in the first place.
|
Fred 104
New Justice
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 06:11:00 -
[1935]
Originally by: Kwint Sommer
I hate to say it but I agree, after telling me the last year and a half of highly specialized training was for nothing I actually hate Zulu more than t20. Personally I don't plan on settling for the revocation of these plans, I want Zulu removed from anything to do with development as well.
That's going a bit far. There is no way that this is an idea penned solely by a single dev, without any review from higher up. It never would have made a dev blog if no other devs agreed. And hell, everyone makes mistakes and occasionally thinks they've got a great idea when they don't. No reason to call him out that badly. But yes, it is a horrible, horrible idea. And I think I may become a religious man just to pray for it not to be implemented.
|
Manfred Sideous
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 06:11:00 -
[1936]
This proposed change is so stupid. Stop nerfing stuff OMG. Eve is one of the few MMO's where it takes real skill to get ahead survive and excell in. EVE devs are doing the same thing almost every other MMO does. Nerf it water it down make it more atractive for a wider subscription base. This game got its start and from gameplaters who wanted a real challenge and now your nerfing this game to where its starting to feel like Land of Idiotcraft.
There isnt a ship thats too overpowered its just whiners who cant rise to the occasion. Dont give in to these people make them evolve instead of the game devolving to some brainless game that a monkey can play. Im so furious with all these changes lately to make the game easier for the less skilled player.
|
Daan Sai
HAZCON Inc Knights Of Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 06:13:00 -
[1937]
Just curious, but what happened to all the design, balancing, testing etc. that went into carriers in the first place - it is all suddenly invalid? If so, how has it become broken? Carriers and Moms are being destroyed. They are powerful and fun to play, what more do you want?
May there always be fearful and awesome ships out there! I like the more positive idea of boosting carriers, (esp with triage) and boosting countering technologies (EW targeting fighters specifically say), over the artificial route of retrospectively decreasing capabilities - that simply has no excitement, just disappointment, and makes it very hard to keep up the pretence of logical consistency in the game.
|
Piccalo
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 06:13:00 -
[1938]
This is by far the most stupid idea CCP has ever come up with. Lets face it everyone in the game that flys a carrier or mothership, flys them cause of one thing the drones. We love having more then 5 drone's, and if you take that away from someone by saying you can have more then 5 just not under your own controle carrier's will not be used as much anymore. Why? Because its just a big a$$ ship that can rep now, thas why.
|
Amaron Ghant
Caldari Ascent of Ages Dark Matter Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 06:13:00 -
[1939]
Originally by: Fred 104
Originally by: Kwint Sommer
I hate to say it but I agree, after telling me the last year and a half of highly specialized training was for nothing I actually hate Zulu more than t20. Personally I don't plan on settling for the revocation of these plans, I want Zulu removed from anything to do with development as well.
That's going a bit far. There is no way that this is an idea penned solely by a single dev, without any review from higher up. It never would have made a dev blog if no other devs agreed. And hell, everyone makes mistakes and occasionally thinks they've got a great idea when they don't. No reason to call him out that badly. But yes, it is a horrible, horrible idea. And I think I may become a religious man just to pray for it not to be implemented.
Agreed, this can't just be his idea. More senior devs must have given the go ahead. Poor blokes just the sacrificial lamb.........Mmmmmm lamb....with mint sauce........Mmmmmmm
It's still a god awful idea though. |
Shar'Tuk TheHated
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 06:14:00 -
[1940]
This reminds me of something... hmmmm.. oh yes! SWG anyone?
DRINK RUM It fights scurvy & boosts morale!
THE BEATINGS WILL CONTINUE UNTIL MORALE IMPROVES! |
|
Amaron Ghant
Caldari Ascent of Ages Dark Matter Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 06:17:00 -
[1941]
Originally by: Piccalo This is by far the most stupid idea CCP has ever come up with. Lets face it everyone in the game that flys a carrier or mothership, flys them cause of one thing the drones. We love having more then 5 drone's, and if you take that away from someone by saying you can have more then 5 just not under your own controle carrier's will not be used as much anymore. Why? Because its just a big a$$ ship that can rep now, thas why.
....and further, every other ship thats limited to 5 drones has the ability to mount weapons other than smartbombs. |
Warlore
Amarr StatiC Elite
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 06:17:00 -
[1942]
Originally by: Shar'Tuk TheHated This reminds me of something... hmmmm.. oh yes! SWG anyone?
yeah i remember that, did you know that they lost most of their subs due to that nge stupidity?
|
Sgt Dragon
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 06:32:00 -
[1943]
I'm beyond perplexed by the reasoning for this nerf. It really does appear that ccp dev is only listening to a small minority of complainers. Rather than repeat arguments made before, I'll quote some of the more succint ones for rereading.
Originally by: DRDNOUGHT Guys.... we are talking about carriers here yes ? 10 times the price of a typical battleship.... months more of skill training.... the whole point of a carrier is its superior fighter and drone carrying power as well as its support capabilities. If it is to be stepped down to just a support vessel, I as well as many others Im sure, are going to have to rethink its value when compared with the training time required as well as the large ISK investment. A carrier is a tactical vessel first and a support vessel second and we cant go nerfing It because it is successful at what it was designed to do. If We need to change the balance then we need to do the same as we would do in the real world when faced with a superior weapon.....invent something that can disable it easier.......
Originally by: Baun The most hilarious part of this suggestion is that even though carriers and motherships are extremely vulnerable NOW, CCP is introducing a new heavier interdictor class.
This change is being proposed before carriers/MS are made even weaker by the introduction of that class and we actually see the effects that that change has. What are they thinking?
Originally by: Kerfira Look at the battles actually going on. You'll NOT see capital fleets obliterating normal fleets. What you'll see at maximum is maybe 50-60 capitals, supported by 200-300 smaller ships (note: your game can't handle this of.c., but your other recent stupid POS changes mandates blobs), fighting fleets of the same caliber. The cap fleets ALREADY NEED the support fleet or they'll fail horribly, yet this is the objective you claim to pursue....
Ok, so your opinion might be that 50-60 is too much. Well, look at the cause for it! All the POS warfare changes you've done in the 2-3 last expansions have ALL seemed as they were DESIGNED to encourage blobbing, something your game quite frankly can't support!
Fix POS warfare! Fix blobbing! Fix lag!
THOSE are the problems that should warrant your attention. Not removal (yes, you are EFFECTIVELY suggesting that) of something that is already fairly well balanced (apart from mommies low-sec invulnerability).
I can't say it better than these guys did, so please give real thought to their arguments.
This nerf will take away from the game. Fixing vexxing problems like desync, AND waiting long enough to see the effects the new ships have on gameplay, before contemplating the next round of changes, is a much better approach, and will keep us players much happier.
|
Cyan Nuevo
Dudes In Crazy Killing Ships
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 06:36:00 -
[1944]
sony sony sony sony sony sony sony sony sony sony sony sony CARRIERS CARRIERS sony sony sony sony sony sony sony sony sony sony sony sony CARRIERS CARRIERS
AHH NERF AHH NEERRRFFF! OOOOOO, IT'S A NEERRFFFFF!
Long story short, please quit with the ANNOYING REPETITIVE SWG references. Even if we all didn't get it at first we get it now.
Don't argue based on anecdote. Argue based on reason. --- Proud Amarr pilot.
|
Leya Marcsson
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 06:36:00 -
[1945]
I (would like to) see following roles for the capital ships:
Dreadnoughts are anti-capital, anti-station killing Monsters. They are just firepower and tank (but alot of it). While they have limited use agains battleships they are unable to defend itself agains smaller ships like cruiser and frigs - but unless there are ALOT cruisers and frights they do not care alot anyway. A battleships fleet is a serious thread for them - like a frigate fleet is a serious thread for a battle ship. So they need the support of combined forces.
Titans are a moving forward bases. It is main use is to have ready fitted Ships in its bay to reinforce the fleet. The main gain are multible attack waves. The JumpClone bay allow Pod Pilots from all other the universe to gather at the Titan within secounds. While its cool to jump in and Doomsday a the enemys fleet the Doomsday Device is mainly a devensiv weapon - in case THEY get jumped on. With this self-defence role they are the ideal part of the support for carriers/motherships.
Carriers role is to increase the firepower of Dreadnoughts and Battleships against Battleships using Figthers and employ the wide range of abilitys of drones. While Figthers are meant to send away with striking groups, drones are used more for self defense and local support. They are somehow defence less if seriously engaded so they better have some ships to support them nearby, just as a RL air craft carrier is supported by its striking group.
Motherships are basicly a hybrit between Carriers and Titans, sharing boths features but to are somehow limited: No JumpClone Bay, Smaller Shiphangar, Less Figthers and Drones.
Some suggestions:
- It seems Dreadnoughts currently kill Battleships far to easy. In result of this a Dreadnought Fleet is nearly always better than a Battleship fleet of the same size. They should not be better, they should be different! Basicly they should have a little less trouble with Battleships, as Battleships have with Frigats.
- Perhabs its worth to give Carriers/Motherships limited additional Anti-Cruiser and Anti-Frigate power?
- In RL Air Craft Carrier are also a main command base. I would suggest to give Titans and Motherships somekind of a build in observator deep space probe, perhabs also the ability to operate deep space probes in different nearby systems or some other kind of "sensor link" with command ships /covert ops - so they are able to get a clue whats going on in the system.
This would give the Pilots something to do while they hanging around at a safespot. The current boredom at a safe spot is the MAIN reason ppl use this kind of ships too aggresive.
|
Das Lol
Gallente Internet Space Fighters
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 06:39:00 -
[1946]
Originally by: Cyan Nuevo sony sony sony sony sony sony sony sony sony sony sony sony CARRIERS CARRIERS sony sony sony sony sony sony sony sony sony sony sony sony CARRIERS CARRIERS
AHH NERF AHH NEERRRFFF! OOOOOO, IT'S A NEERRFFFFF!
Long story short, please quit with the ANNOYING REPETITIVE SWG references. Even if we all didn't get it at first we get it now.
Don't argue based on anecdote. Argue based on reason.
This sucks. It's pointless. It's not needed.
Reason.
|
Pallidum Treponema
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 06:40:00 -
[1947]
75 pages, over 2200 posts. Not one dev saying "Hey, we've been listening to the community and concluded that our idea was, in fact, wrong". Even a "Hey guys, here's the real problem and here is our reasons" have been posted. Personally, I think I have a pretty good idea of what's perceived as the problem, and I posted a suggestion on our internal forums. However, without a representative from CCP actually explaining what the problem is, I'm not going out on a limb to hang myself publically.
A proper response from CCP that doesn't belittle or accuse the playerbase of bias would be appreciated.
|
Beth Dei
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 06:44:00 -
[1948]
Edited by: Beth Dei on 23/10/2007 06:44:23
Originally by: Pallidum Treponema
A proper response from CCP that doesn't belittle or accuse the playerbase of bias would be appreciated.
There won't be one if they just want to shoehorn this in.
And what's truly infuriating is that they won't even give us advance warning. People who don't know whether to keep training up for carriers or to stop have absolutely no idea what's going on. And you can be 100% sure definitively that CCP would never refund the ISK/SP wasted.
|
Han Horensii
Res Publica R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 06:44:00 -
[1949]
Originally by: Leya Marcsson - It seems Dreadnoughts currently kill Battleships far to easy. In result of this a Dreadnought Fleet is nearly always better than a Battleship fleet of the same size. They should not be better, they should be different! Basicly they should have a little less trouble with Battleships, as Battleships have with Frigats.
have you ever used dreads again bs??? dread are the WORST tool to use against a bs, they cant do S*** to a bs in siege mode, and out of siege they are WEAKER than a bs in dps.
seriously
as for the jump clone thing, it is almost not used, since you clone ok, but you cant clone back, and even the number of clones is limited.
the only plus of a titan is its bridge ability, its ship bay, and its DD of course.
SAVE carrier and Moms |
Galaxor
Beasts of Burden YouWhat
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 06:49:00 -
[1950]
I really hate this idea, makes me want to rethink why I spent so much time training carriers, drone skills and support. Makes me want to start looking for a new game to play.
|
|
Cyan Nuevo
Dudes In Crazy Killing Ships
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 06:52:00 -
[1951]
Originally by: Das Lol This sucks. It's pointless. It's not needed.
Reason.
Well that didn't work. How about I'll say this:
Right now the overuse of carriers and motherships is making the game unfun for smaller corps and unbalanced in the favor of bigger ones. This change should help fix that. Argue away. --- Proud Amarr pilot.
|
Anja Lind
Caldari United Forces Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 06:55:00 -
[1952]
Originally by: Cyan Nuevo
Originally by: Das Lol This sucks. It's pointless. It's not needed.
Reason.
Well that didn't work. How about I'll say this:
Right now the overuse of carriers and motherships is making the game unfun for smaller corps and unbalanced in the favor of bigger ones. This change should help fix that. Argue away.
Wait.
Are you arguing that a bigger corp [b]that puts more work into establishing itself and gathering resources and personnel/b] needs to be artificially damaged so that a corp that has not put in the effort/time/etc to establish itself may be propped up? Wow.
I don't pay $15 a month for Space Socialism Online.
|
ER0X
Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 06:56:00 -
[1953]
Originally by: Matthew
My heart isn't set on this method, and if it's not going to work, fine. But I really would like to see some way of making carriers better at boosting non-capital ships than they are at boosting capitals.
Sorry IÆve taken a while to respond back to you Mathew but I really needed to get some sleep.
Under normal circumstances I would be more than willing to debate and discuss the finer facts of flying a capital ship of this class. Of how it could be tweaked, improved, defended. I personally think this class is not powerful enough. A carrier should not be a support vessel it should be the centre piece of your fleet and everything around it is there in support of the carrier. A medic is not considered firstly a support unit it is firstly a fighter and secondly a medic. Support in any definition of battle is fire support. Remove this and it becomes something other than support and therefore should not be on any front line either defensively or offensively deployed. Bear in mind that a defensive deployment is also fire support.
To the crux of the matter. In spite of previous dev blogs stating that drone boats would be un-nerfed. I refer to an earlier post I made that contains this statement. This blog comes from nowhere as if there was a dialog between the player base and the development team with regards to capital ships power. It makes the assumption that certain capital ships are too powerful and need re-balanced. 90-95% disagrees with this assumption. Some believe this class is in balance and needs no tweaking others myself included believe it to be not powerful enough, having killed quite a few of them.
There are further implications that IMO have not been considered fully. A change like this affects solo players, small corps, large corps, alliances and coalitions of alliances. It would affect everyone involved in the game at all levels, noob and vet alike from RSF, GBC to Empire dwellers. If we render this class of ship extremely vulnerable in this fashion. What we will do is we will remove it from the front line as it is now being used. Granted the larger organisations will be able to adapt however I donÆt think the smaller newer player will have the same ability to adapt quickly enough.
There is a delicate economic balance in this game some have toyed with it in this thread. IÆll try to list some key points.
Players will weigh up the proÆs and cons of sinking their time and ISK into such a project, some will still see it as a viable class, others will shun it in favour of other classes. Take the ISK sink alone in skills for example billions of ISK disappear every day because of this class, a perfect ISK sink. Remove the desire to fly it remove the ISK sink in skilling for it. This is before we even consider building one.
Then we take the building of such a ship its modules and fighters. The ISK sink associated with blueprints alone for such a project again amounts to billions. The POS network used to build these ships amounts to billions. Then there is the mineral content involved in the building process. It takes millions of minerals to build this class let alone the modules and fighters associated with it. Millions of minerals are shipped across Empire every day heading for various parts of the universe for building this class. It costs billions to skill for and fly the cargo vessels needed to transport the materials, which incidentally also need to be built. If we neuter this class of ship such that it is rarely used and as a direct response lowers the demand and in turn the supply the economic affect on the smaller player could be catastrophic. At the moment they are still considered powerful enough to put at risk on the front lines which means the supply/demand is high mainly because they die in battle often. A nerf such as this which would remove the desire to fly the ship does not only affect those flying the class it affects those who supply the constituent parts of building the things. i.e. the supply chain consists of lots of smaller corporations/pod pilots from all over the universe.
The producers themselves will have little problem in writing off the few billion in the initial BPO costs of the class and will concentrate solely on other projects which they can use the constituent BPOÆs to build other capital ships such as dreads. However as I stated the supply and demand for the mineral content will leave the markets saturated with minerals driving the mineral value bellow any reasonable profit for miners and reprocessors. What sort of impact would this have long term?
All this from one blog saying we donÆt like where this is going! ORLY?
|
terrific blah
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 07:00:00 -
[1954]
Originally by: Cyan Nuevo
Originally by: Das Lol This sucks. It's pointless. It's not needed.
Reason.
Well that didn't work. How about I'll say this:
Right now the overuse of carriers and motherships is making the game unfun for smaller corps and unbalanced in the favor of bigger ones. This change should help fix that. Argue away.
OMG pirates make this game unfun for bears. OMG battleship makes it unfun for my cruiser. OMG wardecs makes hisec life unfun. OMG mining barges arent fair to my scythe. OMG corps with more than 100 people should not be allowed since smaller corps can't compete.
Seeing the clarity here? There is no "overuse" of capital class. Smaller corps unite. Train, Earn isk. Use tactics. Just because you play doesn't mean your entitled to 0.0, losec, or even hisec for that matter. Nerfs are a response to something be utterly overpowered. Maybe moms in empire are, but carriers are NOT. I can and have taken out carriers with gangs of 5-6 ships BS and smaller. Man i wonder sometimes about the playerbase.
|
Remassog
Gallente Pookie Pookie Foundation
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 07:10:00 -
[1955]
Just read that blog My GAWHD, perfect reason why devs need to play their game. More.
Anyhow not that this band wagon needs anymore people but yeah it's a putrid Idea
|
SaveCarrierAnd Moms
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 07:15:00 -
[1956]
Edited by: SaveCarrierAnd Moms on 23/10/2007 07:22:30 Edited by: SaveCarrierAnd Moms on 23/10/2007 07:15:24
remember to sign the petition,
more SIGS needed !!
check out there :
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=619601
--- Say NO!
Nerf
Petition |
Clerence Thomas
Gallente Black Lotus Heavy Industries Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 07:17:00 -
[1957]
Edited by: Clerence Thomas on 23/10/2007 07:17:51 Okay, time to be somewhat civil and direct on this. Give you the benefit of the doubt that you are trying.
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
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.
I don't know that we missed the point, we are used to getting burned in the past by similar changes that were "gently" presented in similar ways, and then implemented over our objections. You're getting some venom from that.
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
That's when we decided to just blog the idea, and get some feedback on 2 things:
On with the dialog then! :)
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
1. Do you like this idea (that is the more-support-oriented idea)?
No. A carrier (of any size) has one job and one job only - project firepower. The delegation is cool, but you (CCP, not you directly Zulupark) tried to rob me of it's usefulness (forced me to orbit towers and watch nearspace rather then sit in the shield tending fighters and doing my job of projecting firepower), furthermore you foisted the role of logistic support ship on me all in the name of giving little guys a chance to scratch my paint. What did you get? What you asked for. Carriers on the front lines fighting and dying. Their logistics functions too weak to really be useful they are nothing more then HP wells there to soak damage and get pwnd.
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
2. If so, do you like the approach we're thinking about (fighter deployment limits)?
No. Most certainly not. First off it simply strips the carrier of its already inadequite self defense. Second it continues repurposing the carriers to being nothing but expensive and under powered fleet support ships. This is _not_ the job of a carrier. If you want this function please generate a new ship class that is better suited.
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
3. If you liked the idea but no the solution, what propositions do you have?
No comment. The idea is just plain bad.
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
4. If you don't like the idea at all, why not?
See my response to #2, or read the thread. Lots of good points I didn't even think of as my fleet experiance is limited (not missing, just limited - I fight defensively only being a proud carebear.) :p
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
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?
Because it's a routine transport op through semi-secure space and the only expected threat is roaming cruisers and frigs that the carrier should be able to shrug off - take a little damage, sure, but overall shrug them off. Oh, wait, dictors wtfpwn carriers - this is broken.
Besides the support fleet can't _move_ with the carrier. Give me jumping bships with matching range and a gang/fleet jump command and i'll have a fleet around my Thanatos. Until then i'll be either lagging behind the fleet or out in front.
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
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?
Size and cost. :) Oh, and chances of survival... but as of the last couple rounds of nerfing that's not so much the case. Right now carriers are safe transport for valuables while motherships are were ace in the hole support ships. The recent Nyx rebalance broke the only mothership that wasn't under powered; it was the gold standard of what MS should be.
-- "There are over 500 million fire arms in worldwide circulation. That is one fire arm for every twelve people on the planet. The only question is... How do we arm the other eleven?"
|
Aiknaaroe Arvedui
Gallente Irrationality ILLC
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 07:24:00 -
[1958]
WTF! I'm saving up and visualizing the day I can fly carriers, and now they're going to be little more than fleet hospitals and soup kitchens. I feel real sorry for all the people and corps who threw down bank and god knows how much time putting together the organization to get these things, and now they're gonna get beat with the nerfbat until blood runs out their ears. Well I know I won't be socking my money away for this anymore. But honestly it does take away from my sense of fun and anticipation. I'm still a noob, and I love eve so far, but I hope this isn't the way things are normally around here... You see, in this world there's two kinds of people, my friend: Those with loaded guns and those who dig. You dig. |
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 07:32:00 -
[1959]
What's most astonishing is the way CCP are treating us customers on this.
1. Post thread outraging a large part of the customer base. 2. Ignore customers completely (apart from Eris belittling said customers). 3. Profit? (I don't think so)
I guess SOE really has bought CCP...
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Beth Dei
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 07:38:00 -
[1960]
You had better cut the mineral cost of these things in half if you go forward with this crap. A Billion ISK for a sitting duck logistics capital POS hugger? Please.
I suppose this is ONE way to make sure people are flying those T2 battleships. Even if you botch those badly (which is probable), people can say, 'Hey, at least it's not a carrier!'
|
|
sai'l et
SWING KINGS
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 07:39:00 -
[1961]
well. the only good thing about a change like this is that capital chars wont cost as much to buy now. lol but seriously, this is a REALLY bad move it will just make 25 bill ships(moms) no better than a small gang of BS's with damage mods.
just tell zulupark to come out with a better idea. how about titans that can only doomsday ships with small sig radius. and shuttles that can fire balls of hot lava. and and and... maybe some cov ops that cant cloak but can doomsday. and some railguns that shoot exotic dancers. ummmmm. how about........... i got it........ motherships and carriers that will be used as pos huggin lamers. oh wait. thats what ur trying to do already. nvm.
|
Mindlles
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 07:40:00 -
[1962]
Originally by: Manfred Sideous This proposed change is so stupid. Stop nerfing stuff OMG. Eve is one of the few MMO's where it takes real skill to get ahead survive and excell in. EVE devs are doing the same thing almost every other MMO does. Nerf it water it down make it more atractive for a wider subscription base. This game got its start and from gameplaters who wanted a real challenge and now your nerfing this game to where its starting to feel like Land of Idiotcraft.
There isnt a ship thats too overpowered its just whiners who cant rise to the occasion. Dont give in to these people make them evolve instead of the game devolving to some brainless game that a monkey can play. Im so furious with all these changes lately to make the game easier for the less skilled player.
Very well said!
Agree on everything exept u forgot to add - This dev are playing someting els and not eve... just look at what is he is saying? He cant really be playing this game, becouse if he does he must be uterlly worthless.
|
Cyan Nuevo
Dudes In Crazy Killing Ships
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 07:43:00 -
[1963]
Edited by: Cyan Nuevo on 23/10/2007 07:44:56
Originally by: Anja Lind Are you arguing that a bigger corp that puts more work into establishing itself and gathering resources and personnel needs to be artificially damaged so that a corp that has not put in the effort/time/etc to establish itself may be propped up? Wow.
I don't pay $15 a month for Space Socialism Online.
What happened to 'EVE is hard, deal with it.'? I started playing this game because of it.
No, of course a bigger corp will still have the same firepower as before if they plan accordingly. They won't win, however, just because they have more money and can afford to throw carriers around in small engagements.
Originally by: Anja Lind Also, this nerf hurts smaller corps/Alliances more than bigger ones. Bigger ones can afford to field more carriers to make up for their lost usefulness. A smaller corp with one or two capitals can't.
You are, like many others, assuming that larger corps can just pop out new carrier pilots whenever they want. Sure, big alliances can afford 5000 carriers but do they have the people to fly them?
You are also stuck in the mindset that more capitals = victory. This is the principle that CCP is trying to break. (Do you honestly prefer more capitals = victory to more skill = victory?)
@terrific: OMG pirates make this game unfun for bears. Funny, pirates don't seem to bother me very much when I'm carebearing. Maybe it's player skill? As opposed to the current carrier situation which is drop cyno, jump in carriers, crush opposing team?
OMG battleship makes it unfun for my cruiser. Except that battleships don't get dropped on you from a couple systems away and don't have a wicked tank while still retaining significant firepower. A few cruisers can make mincemeat of a battleship. There is a clear dividing line between a carrier and a battleship: one is a capital, the other is not. "Capital"... doesn't even the name imply it should be used with an accompanying fleet?
OMG wardecs makes hisec life unfun. Not if you play smart.
OMG mining barges arent fair to my scythe. A mining barge is pretty much a direct upgrade from a scythe and easily accessible. We're talking about non-capitals to capitals here, it's a much bigger jump.
OMG corps with more than 100 people should not be allowed since smaller corps can't compete. But smaller corps can get some decent pvp out of bigger corps just by picking their fights. Not so if they find carriers dropped on them immediately.
Let me reiterate. The big difference between this "Capital Online" situation and others is the matter of player skill. Other engagements against stronger foes can be won or at least avoided via skill and planning. Small corps, on the other hand, cannot do a thing against multiple carriers dropped on them in the middle of a fight from systems away.
But all this is all so utilitarian. Should we really operate on the maxim that carriers should be crazy-tanking damage-machines? --- Proud Amarr pilot.
|
Haakelen
Gallente United Forces Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 07:57:00 -
[1964]
Cyan, if your goal here is to go against the status quo of more ships = victory, you'll have to fundamentally change how Eve works, because that's how it is. How do you suppose that you counter this? Make good ships bad? People will just replace the nerfed ships with the nearest analog. And then people will whine again in 6 months because they either can't keep up or don't want to work at it.
Numbers wins fights. It's the truth, even if you (or I) don't like it. You can't remove this dynamic from our internet spaceship combat. What, are people supposed to see 100 enemy ships, think 'Oh, drat. They've already assembled a large fleet. If I make my own to counter it, it might cause the paperthin sever to have issues. Well, they were there first.'?
More ships cause lag. Nobody wants lag. There's no fair way to solve that 'problem'. CCP needs to make the server work better. It's their problem, not ours.
To corrupt a saying,
When they nerfed Nanoships, I didn't care, because I didn't fly one. When they nerfed Privateers, I didn't care, because I wasn't one. (And evil greifers are ruining eve ) When they nerfed the Titans, I didn't care, because I didn't fly one. (And BoB/ASCN/D2/RA/GS/AAA/LV sucks) When they nerfed the Motherships, I didn't care, because I didn't fly one. (And Ginger sucks) When they nerfed the Curse, I didn't care, because I didn't fly one. When they nerfed the Carriers, I didn't care, because I didn't fly one. (And drones are the root of all evil and lag, ban Gallente!) When they nerfed the magical, perfectly balanced and not at all overpowered or exploited ship I fly, there was no one left to speak out.
Nerfing isn't the answer. It just hurts the game.
|
WardogX
Outkasts
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 08:02:00 -
[1965]
This kinda nerf will make old players start disliking this game, if you dont think so just look at the length of negative responses in this post and take heed to it your community is telling you its a mistake.
This is basically turning carriers and motherships into hardcore support role ships. Take a poll and I bet you will find people who enjoy playing support roles are a minority not a majority (this is coming from years of playing other mmo's).
Forcing a player to play their carriers/motherships as a support class after 1+ year of skill training is a serious betrayal of your players. This nurf would basically leave dreadnoughts and titans for people who want to make use of there capital skills and still play an active non support role. Also, even playing as devils advocate, if you plan on nurfing carrier class vessels whats the nurf to balance out the other capital ships?
Capital ships are the ultimate dream goal for all players of eve.. don't destroy it.
|
Rusty PwnStar
Rampage Eternal Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 08:07:00 -
[1966]
Edited by: Rusty PwnStar on 23/10/2007 08:08:13
Originally by: Cyan Nuevo
No, of course a bigger corp will still have the same firepower as before if they plan accordingly. They won't win, however, just because they have more money and can afford to throw carriers around in small engagements.
It's a given that if you fly solo in a carrier, the chances are you'll die. So they bring support and friends. This change means more friends than before, making the small corp get screwed anyway, if they don't plan accordingly. It works both ways But that aside, that still doesn't tell me why this is needed. The Devs have not informed us why, just told us of the intent.
Originally by: Cyan Nuevo You are, like many others, assuming that larger corps can just pop out new carrier pilots whenever they want. Sure, big alliances can afford 5000 carriers but do they have the people to fly them?
You are also stuck in the mindset that more capitals = victory. This is the principle that CCP is trying to break. (Do you honestly prefer more capitals = victory to more skill = victory?)
So I've wasted 2 years training, due to a mind set? Seems rather harsh, I always thought this game was the best, due to it's openness. the fact you can do anything, become anything. Scamming, Pirating, Anti-pirating etc etc
This change is, we are told, to balance Carriers and MS, but tell me, where was the large amount of player forum posts asking for balance? I've spent most of my time in EvE in in and around 0.0, and I have many friends, I can honestly say, i've never heard anyone complain carriers and MS are overpowered. (lowsec MS aside)
It strikes me, that this is just a cheap shot at cleaning up a bad code base. Or as has been said before, a way of making the real nerf, more palatable.
Regards Rusty
|
Haakelen
Gallente United Forces Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 08:09:00 -
[1967]
Also,
Originally by: Cyan Nuevo
But all this is all so utilitarian. Should we really operate on the maxim that carriers should be crazy-tanking damage-machines?
They're not. Fly one some time.
|
Daan Sai
HAZCON Inc Knights Of Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 08:10:00 -
[1968]
If alliances are fielding so *many* carriers at a time that it is actually becoming a major issue, then it is an economic/resource problem, not a fault of the carrier design per se. Make them more expensive so the cost-risk-benefit equation is rebalanced, or address the hyper-wealth sloshing around the game.
I really hope this isn't an indirect side effect of mass isk devaulation due to other game problems. It should be *difficult* to field a lot of carriers.
|
TXtrade1
Caldari Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 08:15:00 -
[1969]
JUST LEAVE CARRIERS/MOMS ALONE AND GO WORK ON POS WARFARE AND OTHER CRAP THAT LAGS THE GAME!!!!!
|
Sarf
Asgard Industries Safe And Fun Environment
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 08:17:00 -
[1970]
after reading several pages, not all 76, i have to come down on the side that capital ships are working as they should, and should not be changed.
I don't fly a carrier but the explanations of how they work and the roll they fill seems correct.
It seems there is a problem with the triage module not being useful in practice. So that should be addressed first.
Here is a alternate idea. How about a variation of a existing battle ship that is a any carrier role. It has about 75% of the fire power of a existing battle ship. But when a new mid slot module is activated on it, the new ships weapons go live and automatically fire on any hostile fighter that come within say 50 km of the ship.
The anti fighter targeting would do a threat assessment and kill fighters in this priority:
1. a fighter targeting the anti-fighter ship. 2. a fighter targeting a gang mate 3. a fighter targeting a squadron mate 4. a fighter targeting a fleet mate 5. a hostile fighter in range.
At this point it would lock on the weapons and fire automatically. This is why people are reporting that against sentry guns the the fighters are overly vulnerable.
( off topic, I would like to see sentry drones work like this also, the player don't have to activate them, they target and shoot hostile things, but if told to attack something then the players choice overrides the AI)
This would eliminate one of the complaints of lots of fighters is that they lag out everyone to the point where you can't react to them. Because the fighter targeting would be done server side where the whole battle is loaded and evaluated.
A carrier could still kill an anti fighter ship, but it would be guaranteed to loose a few fighters doing so. But the anti fighter BS would be easy killings for a regular battle ship
With the anti fighter BS protecting the gang mates then the gang mates can focus on killing the carrier as they know they are covered from fighters by a gang mate.
- Sarf CEO, Director of Freighter construction. Miner of small balls of dirt. |
|
Clamn8er
Refuge of the Damned
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 08:19:00 -
[1971]
A very unsettling thought occurred to me last night. CCP must obviously have anticipated that every single carrier pilot who has spent:
- Billions in skills and equipment
Months of training Anxiety of realisation that their huge investment is not an uber solo killing machine but actually reliant on fleet formation to defend it, being surprisingly easy to kill for such a powerful machine ,
àwould all react furiously to basically being taxed and nerfed into the ground.
Our cumulative reactions therefore, may well be within the boundaries of what the architects of this idea consider æacceptableÆ and that no matter how bitterly we oppose this move, no matter how bad the interpretation of the facts on which the decision is made and not matter how poorly resolved in their minds the consequences of this change are, they may well be push ahead.
To me, within the groundswell of reaction here, there is a distinct undercurrent of feeling that CCP is changing its attitudes to its player base. Of course, one of the most attractive features in this game was the close link between the company and the players û even at times crossing the line (which personally I think was a storm in a teacup.)
This relationship is evolving as EVE moves well into maturity, but my feeling is that the player base and mother CCP are moving on different tangents. In this social progression, it is unseeming and bad policy to interrupt the flow of the game with sharp, knee jerk reactions that are extremely unsettling to the player base and become less acceptable with the ripening of time. It is bad policy and it is unwise politics.
Nerfs û or generally reversals of a position û create instability. On occasion, certain touch-ups and readjustments have been necessary and well received.
But in preparing to nerf carriers however, CCP are ignoring the iconic status that these have for the player base, both as something to strive for (as all of us carrier pilots and in fact almost every single new player û as we all once were û looking up at Capitals in awe knows), but also because of the enormous economic disruption of such a huge personal investment and the painstaking amount of time it took to get there.
Then of course there is the other aspect of such a powerful change and that is the unreasonableness and û if I may say û the somewhat nanve perspective of the expected results that certain people seem to hold. The counter-arguments have been stated many times and (non-exhaustively) can be summarised very succinctly.
òCarriers are NOT solo uber killers except on an exceptionally rare one-on-one. òCarriers are actually surprisingly easy to destroy, you just need a bit of experience. òCarriers are NOT just a mega-Corp thing; the smaller teams fielding them will be excluded through being unable to muster the right support. òCCP should invest on EVEÆs tech infrastructure and not punish the player base for lag.
Many people feel and have felt, rightly or wrongly, that this game is something of a joint effort between CCP and themselves. This has given a feeling of great personal attachment and the sense of real immersion and community.
Suddenly therefore, finding ourselves assailed and derided (as we were yesterday by the very ill-judged interventions by a certain Dev) was humiliating and grossly counterproductive. Many of us here feel part of the very concrete that is the foundation of this community and if our CCP stops listening to our cumulative experience and advice, we will all lose in the end.
|
Haakelen
Gallente United Forces Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 08:24:00 -
[1972]
Originally by: Clamn8er The Awful truth
Getting that vibe here myself. I think CCP will do this no matter how obvious it is that the intelligent playerbase of this game doesn't want it to happen.
|
J1NX
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 08:32:00 -
[1973]
Edited by: J1NX on 23/10/2007 08:33:06 I totally disaggre with the proposed CCP changes about carriers.
1 - CCP can set the rules of this game, but they should take in consideration the oppinion of people playing it, since they are the real income of this busines.
2 - If u set the rules of anything, u should be honest and if u take something from 1 place, u have to give something to the people being affected.
3 - We are not talking about a small change, we are talking about reducing the power of a ship to a half and another ship to a quarter, this is totally unacceptable since being allowed to pilot any of those ships means way more time and isk than a being a master in any other kind of ship.
4 - U should not take down a capital ship into the crap role of doing logistic things since it's not worth 1 bil the ship + 0.5 bil the fitting + months and months of training.
5 - Seems that CCP only has 1 word "LAG", and in the name of it they can take any action they want to do without any problem. Review your strategy and attack the problem at desing time, not once it's allready implemented and people has worked their way into it. If a carrier was supposed to be just a logistic ship with just 5 fighters it should have being this way all the time. U should not say any person that the home he is building is going to losse half of the rooms after he has allready builded it.
6 - Stop telling about assigning fighters to other people. It's not an acceptable way of managing a carrier in most of the scenarios in the game.
7 - About the uber damage power of a carrier I will just say that it's a total joke, the current warfare does not accept anything that does not means instant damage and even taking in consideration the damage done by a fighter once it reaches to it's target, a decent bs can support this firepower, even my drake's alt can tank 10 fighters from a thanatos with skills 5 in fighters and gallente carrier.
8 - When u nerfed missiles, it was somewhat comprensible since it was not balanced that a 30 mil sp guy in a megathron could not do the same damage output over an small rat than a lv 1 torp raven pilot, but this is not the case. U are touching the real players of this game, people with 2+ years of playing.
9 - Do u want to have customers angry ?.
10 - Stay away of unacceptable changes and "LISTEN PEOPLE".
Thankx.
?> cd pub ?> more beer
|
Rusty PwnStar
Rampage Eternal Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 08:36:00 -
[1974]
Originally by: Haakelen
Originally by: Clamn8er The Awful truth
Getting that vibe here myself. I think CCP will do this no matter how obvious it is that the intelligent playerbase of this game doesn't want it to happen.
Me too.
But I've thought long and hard about this, this morning, and I have to say, the one thing I am struggling with, is coming up with ideas. The reason being, I just don't see a need for change. As I see it at the moment, Carriers and Motherships are balanced enough, they only change required would be the lowsec issue with motherships. Maybe that could be cured, buy not allowing them to use any mods or fighters in lowsec, while at the same time, not allowing them to be targeted. They cannot hurt or be hurt in lowsec. Maybe a bad idea, just a thought.
Regards Rusty
|
Kwint Sommer
Incoherent Inc Otaku Invasion
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 08:37:00 -
[1975]
Originally by: Cyan Nuevo Edited by: Cyan Nuevo on 23/10/2007 07:44:56
Originally by: Anja Lind Are you arguing that a bigger corp that puts more work into establishing itself and gathering resources and personnel needs to be artificially damaged so that a corp that has not put in the effort/time/etc to establish itself may be propped up? Wow.
I don't pay $15 a month for Space Socialism Online.
What happened to 'EVE is hard, deal with it.'? I started playing this game because of it.
No, of course a bigger corp will still have the same firepower as before if they plan accordingly. They won't win, however, just because they have more money and can afford to throw carriers around in small engagements.
Try assigning and reassigning fighters to people during a large fleet engagement, it's nigh impossible to do.
Even without the lag and bugs that make the actual assigning of fighters fail the system of assigning fighters is inherently flawed. That's why you don't see people doing it. You end up assigning 100M per person worth of extremely fragile fighters to people that don't fully grasp how they work plus they have to be watched like a hawk as they're easily killed and liable to get themselves killed. For instance, they follow people into warp which can't be disabled and if you're not watching them for even a few seconds they can easily warp after a guy and end up at a hostile POS, poof there goes 100M. Even for the rare corpmate that does realize how much loosing fighters cost you and really cares -most think you're made of ISK if you fly a carrier so what's a couple fighters- he's still liable to loose them simply because he's too busy controlling his ship to notice them enter warp or get hit by a couple officer smartbombs.
I know you don't like getting ganked by motherships in low sec but breaking two ship classes is not the way to remedy that.
If you want to see a viable method of forcing carriers to always have a support fleet see some of my earlier posts. Sig removed. Please keep sigs to 400x120 pixels and 24000 bytes in size or less. -Kaemonn |
Das Lol
Gallente Internet Space Fighters
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 08:38:00 -
[1976]
Edited by: Das Lol on 23/10/2007 08:39:09 You could also have a few pockets of Empire-Sov 0.0 in tactically arranged areas that would allow supercapitals to travel through empire without being allowed into lowsec. It would also be like 0.0-Lite and let newer players look around without having to go 50 jumps.
|
MarKand
FinFleet Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 08:45:00 -
[1977]
You asked for constructive input, well it isnt easy to be constructivewhen you are thinking of taking away almost a year dediacated training.
If you dont want CARRIERS ingame, remove them instead. And replace them with a T2 BS for the support role. Like a BS sized commandship, but dont transform a billion ISK ship to a 25 million logistics cruiser.
I do understand your thoughts. But as many have wrote before, eve is a skill game. If you want to take that away, make all ships availble from start, and transform skillpoints to Killpoints, that can be traded to ISK or stuff in stations. Then you will start to have the game you slowly are moving towards.
To make it a bit clearer, a carrier is capital ship, it is SUPPOSED to be a bada$$ to kill, and to kill stuf with. It is NOT a battleship, battleships and battlecruisers have a entirely different skilltree.
BUT, if it is a fact that the hardwere you have CANT support the amount of capital ships, that is increasing all the time, since your customoers, us subscribers, stay more them 7 months. Then it would be better to make a devblog that the hardware can support it, thats is why you have to remove it, then the customers, as in me and other subscribers, have a HONEST option to try to seekout a new game to play. But to start removing implemented features that are defining the very class and ship, it is as to remove turretslots from a Amarr BS and replacing it with two launcher slots and six for Nos/neuts. And then excpect people to bring it to a fleet engagemet.
To put in compar with other entitys and happenings in eve, you would have to nerf eve to this.
* Max 5 lowsec players in a 0,1-0,4 system, since a single player running missions will be ganked otherwise, also max one pirate/lowsec player at one gate at the time. So that they cant hold and gang him. * Recoons and Blackbirds/Scorpions cant jam or do any ew dmg to more then one ship at the time, since it would be unbalanced to jam multiple targets. * You cant bring more then 5-10% more players that are hostile towards eachother to a system, since it would unbalance the outcome, players trying to jump into a such system would automatic jump to their homesystem.
Well the list as you surely understand can be made very long, not to mention how you would have to nerf the commandship, so it is only giving bonuses to its own sized ships, it would be very unbalanced to have a commandship giving speed bonuses to ceptors while the same time giving amror bonuses to caps. Hope you see the point. You CANT nerf and remove every unfair/strenght/class in game to fit everyone. Instead, lower the price on cap skills and carriers, and get more people to fly them, if that is the thing. BUT PLEASE STOP KILLING THE GAME FOT PEOPLE THAT HAS BEEN PLAYING MORE THEN SEVEN MONTHS.
Best regards, and thank you for taking tha time to read.
MarKand
|
Yaay
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 08:56:00 -
[1978]
Answer me this CCP. Why is it that 60 carriers being used on the battlefield is far worse than 60 dreads being used to seige a system. Maybe you don't get the fact that you don't reduce the amount of potential capitals in game buy just ******* them over.
IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=619019IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID |
Das Lol
Gallente Internet Space Fighters
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 08:58:00 -
[1979]
This sets a really, really disturbing precedent.
CCP puts a ship/module into the game, presumably after testing it to find out if it isn't amazingly broken. A few months go by, and small tweaks here or there are done to make it relatively well-implemented.
<1 month/3 Months/6 Months/1 Year/2 Years> down the road, CCP decides that the playerbase isn't using the ship 100% as they intended.
Instead of observing our actions and asking for suggestions and trying to use small tweaks to ease things into a better state, they do a massive 180 and force a modification that nobody wants.
Now, after this has happened, why would anyone want to spend RL time, a long amount of time in some situations, to train for a ship, when CCP might obliterate it at any time without cause or reason or sense? Masochism?
Wasting a small amount of SP on something is different than wasting many millions of SP on a ship. There must be a barrier where you can't make massive changes. Otherwise you've lost all trust from us. You're getting real close with me. Maybe make it 2M SP. Or 2.5M. Or 3. But there MUST be an amount of SP dedicated where you say 'We affirm absolutely that we will not drastically change this.'
If you're going to say this is a sandbox game, let it be a sandbox. If you're going to say the real-time skill system is better than grinding, don't subvert it through massive nerfs.
I tell you what, I am certainly in no way going to train for the T2 battleships/new cruisers/frigs now. What assurance do I have that you won't pull this **** on us again?
Withdraw this, immediately. Apologize to your playerbase, right now. And show some good will by fixing something, instead of destroying things. Or watch half your subscribers disappear.
|
Lusian
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 08:59:00 -
[1980]
Why dont we all use snowball launchers. This way no one will loose they're ships from a mass atack of fighters or players or npc's.
And we can have different snowball affects. and nerf all aspects of the game that give any advantage in any way so we can all train a gang load of expensive skills for no reason at all.
Now all te nerf that could and ever be thought of will be in that rediculous patch. then we can just focus on nerfing the snowball launchers and the different affects the launcher and snowballs make.
If a carrior in real life can launch al its winfs to fight then so can ours. A carrior is useless in that sence if it can use all its defenders.
This nerf to the carriors cannot and must not go through. I can see so many players leaveing already if the nerf goes through. one less ship to train for if it does.
|
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 08:59:00 -
[1981]
I can't help but think that this is the result of all the cries for "Devs shouldn't play the game!" that happened after the T20 incident.
This suggestion clearly shows what kind of decisions come from a developer who has no other knowledge of the game than his statistics, forum whines and what he reads from the code.
Software producers who doesn't know exactly what their customers think and want, doesn't stay long in the business......
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Koala Bare
eXceed Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 09:04:00 -
[1982]
Originally by: WardogX This kinda nerf will make old players start disliking this game
Recycling and purging subscriberbase are marketing concepts too you know ...
|
Serge
Amarr Seraphin Technologies Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 09:10:00 -
[1983]
This: Crovan's suggestion
excellent suggestions!! --- Don¦t panic
|
Delphi Disra
Gallente An Eye For An Eye Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 09:13:00 -
[1984]
THE minute this happens i quit eve.
I have not spent over a year training and 600m in skills so that i can fly a useless ship and let other people controll my fighters. Their is a reason capital ships are uber, they cost ALLOT and take ALLOT of time to get to fly.
THIS WOULD BE A KILLER AND YOU WOULD LOOSE SUBSCRIPTION TO ALL 7 OF MY ACCOUNTS!
|
Matthew
Caldari BloodStar Technologies
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 09:13:00 -
[1985]
Originally by: ER0X A carrier should not be a support vessel it should be the centre piece of your fleet and everything around it is there in support of the carrier.
Fair enough. But I can re-express my concern that way round too. If a carrier is as or more effective at supporting other carriers as it is at supporting the actual support, then it creates the incentive to simply replace the support with increasing numbers of carriers, rendering the increasing number of carrier pilots just another brick in the wall, not the centre piece of anything.
Everything around it being in support of a carrier is not just limited to them shooting the stuff the fighters can't catch. Adding damage just by being there, and without even having to fit a module, sounds like quite a powerful support role to me.
Originally by: ER0X To the crux of the matter. In spite of previous dev blogs stating that drone boats would be un-nerfed
That un-nerf was largely directed at the smaller drone boats anyway, due to the need to limit their use of large drones via reduced drone bay sizes (i.e. you can't currently give a cruiser the ability to carry multiple wings of medium drones without giving it the ability to field a wing of heavies). The larger drone boats already hit the number-of-drones limit with the largest drones they can mount before they hit their drone bay size limit, so bandwidth was never going to make as much difference there.
Originally by: ER0X If we render this class of ship extremely vulnerable in this fashion. What we will do is we will remove it from the front line as it is now being used. Granted the larger organisations will be able to adapt however I donÆt think the smaller newer player will have the same ability to adapt quickly enough.
Well, from my point of view, this isn't about making it extremely vulnerable, just making it more effective when escorted by non-capitals than when solo or in a capital-only blob. I fully agree that any method to do that needs to maintain a minimum solo effectiveness, while still giving room for a significant boost when used in the desired mixed fleet setting.
As with the smaller groups, I don't think anyone's proposing that you need dozens of battleships to get the benefit of 1 carrier. But by the same token, a small corp that can only field 2 or 3 pilots at any given time strikes me as being too small to justify their full benefits anyway.
Originally by: ER0X At the moment they are still considered powerful enough to put at risk on the front lines which means the supply/demand is high mainly because they die in battle often.
If by "the front lines", you mean throwing it into battle as part of a mixed fleet, then I'm not about nerfing it there at all. That is where it should be powerful. Where it would be less powerful is in the situations where you wouldn't particularly want to fight now anyway.
I still want them on the front lines, I still want them blowing up. But I don't want them to be the only things there.
As far as the economics goes, the number of any ship being fielded is primarily going to be limited by the income the corps and alliances using them can generate. This in turn drives the size and frequency of battles that can be sustained, which manifests itself as the natural ebb and flow of combat. If you do see a reduction in capital ship usage, corps and alliances are not just going to sit on the income freed up from paying for them (or if they do, their opponents will not, and defeat them). They will point the freed-up income at something else - and whatever that something else is is going to generate demand to replace that which was lost. You'd likely end up with more numerous, and more frequent battleship attacks if the usage of capital ships dropped off. ------- There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines. |
Sral TBear
letter of marque Plunder-Bears
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 09:15:00 -
[1986]
Originally by: Crovan I'm going to be very honest (and hopefully constructive) here.
CCP, you had this coming. Not to say that the flames are justified, but the anger over the castration of capital fighter-based ships is totally on you guys. I read the dev blog again (and then once more), and I can see the concern that you guys are dealing with. Carriers are pretty nasty pieces of work in the right hands, and motherships even more so.
The urge to nerf that which is perceived as being too powerful is a natural part of the game design cycle, right? In this case, though, I think what we are dealing with mostly is a problem of perception. Carriers and moms are perceived as being too powerful, when, in fact, they have their own unique weaknesses and problems. Honestly, my first impression was that this proposal came from someone who has 1) never flown a carrier in a TQ engagement and/or 2) does not have significant experience in a fleet utilizing carriers in a large conflict. These two points are why I was so adamant months ago about devs playing the game on TQ like the rest of us.
First, for the claim that carriers/moms are death machines/solo pwnmobiles, this is simply unfounded. I would very much like to see the research done to demonstrate this fact, or is it simply the result of enough people griping on the forums? Fact is that a carrier/mom is pretty easy to get away from unless you do something wrong. Jumping into a place like Otou or another known mom-camping area without a scout falls into this category, by the way.
Second, carriers and moms are vulnerable, so long as you are competent and have a fleet to back you up. While lowsec motherships are much more difficult to take out, x13 has demonstrated that it is possible. To be honest, my suspicion is that low-sec capital camping is the real impetus of this change. In 0.0, a lone mom or carrier mucking around and camping is just begging to get ganked.
In my opinion, the recent interdictor changes made motherships a great deal more vulnerable in 0.0, and I think the recent streak of mom kills supports my assertion. The problem then, returns to lowsec. How about, instead of nerfing the ships that people have trained for months for (and spent billions on), something else gets added to even the odds a bit? Why not allow the stargates/sentry guns limited scrambling ability, or have an aggression counter preventing cynoing out after aggression, the same way sub-capitals do. Either of those give a potential attacker time to neut down a mothership below jumping capacity, and generally discourage gatecamping in one. The only way to avoid a well-organized gank would be to have a significant support fleet of your own, which is exactly the aim of this blog.
There is also the suggestion from the days before the bubble boost/supercap nerf of having a capital scale scrambler that is capable of scrambling another supercap. If these things could be held down more easily, it reduces their viability as solocamping deathmachines, but keeps their ability to defend themselves and provide fire support for a fleet intact.
The assigning/launching limitations simply would not work in the heat of the moment. It's already hard enough to get fighters assigned in a timely manner, and sometimes it is just better/easier to warp the capitals in and use them as additional rep support.
Also, Zulupark, congrats making it to the design team and good luck. My honest thought, though, is that nerfing these ships is not the answer. I would take a closer look at why the mechanics of the game allow the problems that you are trying to solve, and addressing those.
I would be honestly curious to know what the issue being solved here is, at a more specific level than what we have been told. I also can't be bothered going through 70 pages of flames for it, so if it could get added to the dev blog or Wrangler's post, that'd be swell.
-Cro
nuff said Plunder-Bears open university |
Matthew
Caldari BloodStar Technologies
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 09:16:00 -
[1987]
Originally by: Amethyst Rage It's been said already, many times. CCP have seriously got this wrong.
From the perspective of a small corp CEO trying to get my members into a half serious 0.0 alliance, I have been encouraging my senior members to get into Carriers, the corp has been focused towards getting the isk together for the skill books and ships. We have been working on this for a very long time. Our goal?
Alliance diplo >> So, how many carrier pilots you got? Amethyst Rage >> A few, working on more. Alliance diplo >> When you have a few more convo me again and I'll let you join our alliance. Amethyst Rage >> Wait! We have Command ship pilots, recons, hacs...lots of them. Loads of combat SPs... Alliance diplo >> [CLICK]
I wonder if they will be asking how many of the T2 battleships we have from now on?
The whole point of this change is to combat the increasing trend towards exactly what you describe - where capitals are all the alliance diplo cares about. The aim of this change is to make them care about those command ships, recons, battleships etc, because they'll need them to get the most out of their carriers. ------- There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines. |
Jurushy
SteelVipers YouWhat
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 09:17:00 -
[1988]
ok this is a huge topic and i have not the time to read all stuff but here is my idea.
1. Carrier/Moms should be fleet support ships but they should also be able to defend them self, so the fighter/drone limit is a stupid way to force this ships into this direction (In my oppinion the current game mechanic is fine).
2. Carrier/Moms should not be lowsec pawn machines.
3. More support capacity would be fine for this ships
so now how to reach this target.
1. Remove the fighter damage and the tank bonus on caldarie amarr and gallente ships I am sorry but this are combat bonuses and maks no sence for a support ship The minmatar carrier has still the correct bonus for this role.
2. Remove the invulnerably for motherships in low security space or add a module which allow to scramble a mom in the low security space so the stupid lowsec ganking mothership will be remove really fast.
3. Change the triage modul It is not usable -If you aktivate it you can not be boosted by other ships (carriers). Why should i aktivate such a modul in a fleet with 10 other carriers? For smal fleet warefare with only one carrier it is maybe ok but in such cases a ggod carier do not need this modul to suport his gang. -It boost the remote repair systems by boost amount and it also reduce the boost speed. Hi i kill my capacitor with one remote modul so why should i fit more? (better reduce the capacitor need of such modules to 50%) -10 minutes of beeing a sitting duck and may loos the ship (i would never fit this modul on a mothership and even on a carrier it can lead to a carrier loss)
------
REVENGE IS A DISH BEST SERVED COLD Old Klingon prover |
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 09:22:00 -
[1989]
If its the AMOUNT of capital pilots that worry CCP, there's a very simple fix for that.
Stop character transfers!
If characters can't be transferred, capital pilots will slowly leave the game as their players stop playing. With character transfers, the majority of capital pilots stay in the game. Even if a player leaves the game for good, he'll most likely give the character (or the ISK he gains from selling it) to ingame friends.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Muppad
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 09:28:00 -
[1990]
this is possibly the worst idea anyone has had...ever...
|
|
1Of9
Gallente The Circle STYX.
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 09:29:00 -
[1991]
geez ccp.. 77 pages and not a word about this...
I think your costumers deserve a bit of respect and a reply to this pressing issue dont you agree?
|
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar MASS HOMICIDE Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 09:31:00 -
[1992]
Originally by: 1Of9 geez ccp.. 77 pages and not a word about this...
I think your costumers deserve a bit of respect and a reply to this pressing issue dont you agree?
maybe because they didn 't made a meetign this week to discuss this subject? You know in real companies employees dotn take decisiosn all by themselves and throw them publicly.
If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough |
Jurgen Cartis
Caldari Interstellar Corporation of Exploration
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 09:45:00 -
[1993]
Originally by: Knarfis
1. Assigning fighters under current fleet conditions is near impossible due to lag This is a lag issue. It has nothing to do with the carrier or its abilities what so ever. invalid point.
4. This plan increases lag in fleet battles, need more people in them to assign fighters to. This again has nothing to do with the proposed changes. Lag is a completely different subject. If this is such an issue don't fly the damn thing in a lag filled environment. Be accountable with your assets.
6. Triage mode sucks donkey balls. Different subject and has nothing to do with what is being talked about here.
1. You absolutely cannot make balance decisions without considering lag and the general environment the ships will be used in. If they are intended to go into 100v100 fleet battle, their abilities must be usable under lagged conditions. Quite frankly, the drone menu is not cooperative under normal conditions, I shudder to think how well it responds in fleet battle.
It would be like Ford designing a car, and saying "we don't have to design with rain in mind, it has nothing to do with the car or it's abilities what so ever." The difference is that Ford can get sued when the brakes don't work in the rain.
4. Decreasing lag is also generally seen as a good thing. Having to have all your fighters out and assigned prebattle means there are a LOT more fighters flying around while everyone is trying to load the grid. This means more people getting to the battlefield and waiting 5 minutes to get their CONCORD mails. They also STILL haven't said what happens to delegated fighters if you're using 5 and your gangmate with the other 5 dies.
6. Triage mode is entirely connected with Carriers, though not as closely as Siege is connected with Dreads. It greatly buffs the attributes of Carriers that CCP is trying to promote here, and it failed horribly. The nonfunctional EW immunity is probably part of that, but if you want to discuss Carrier logistics, you can't sweep aside Triage.
You dismiss many attributes of this discussion as 'irrelevent'. Why? If they're making major changes to the way Carriers are used, it's all on the table, as tactics and roles for the 'new' Carriers will change drastically if this is implemented.
As an aside, my biggest beef with the whole thing is making Carriers equally effective hugging a POS as they would be at the front, assuming they fix the bug with assigned fighters not getting bonuses. Hugging a POS is not fun. I aspired to perhaps fly a Thanatos or Archon someday, but I do not aspire to hug a POS and relinquish control over MY drones to a half dozen interceptors. It's not fun, it's not epic, and it kills a Sci-fi dream. -------------------- ICE Blueprint Sales FIRST!! -Yipsilanti Pfft. Never such a thing as a "last chance". ;) -Rauth |
Fred 104
New Justice
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 10:08:00 -
[1994]
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?
I want to respond to this constructively. I really do. I'm simply not capable of responding to a post like this without using insults and snide remarks. There's just so many things wrong with it. Honestly. Sorry.
|
Petit D'eath
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 10:13:00 -
[1995]
Originally by: Leonidas Rex For me it seems like carrier pilots think that just because they spent alot of time and have alot of skills in carrier related branches that their ship (carrier) should be the ultimate fighting machine, I find this a bit egocentrical at best. I have invested alot, no ****loads of skills in BS and other skills and I can get killed by a carrier quite easily.. should I whine on the forums because of it? No, accept it, everyone should be able to be killed, anyway, this is not my point.
I dont mind if a carrier can take out 4 BS with luck, that would be kinda cool and quite close to how it is in real life. But I do think that a carrier should be quite vulnrable itself, for example, it should be able to be taken down by a small number of stealth bombers unless it has good enough point defense from other ships in the fleet.
Having it so that each carrier is vulnrable to the assault of a small group of stealth bombers would make it quite balanced in fleet operation, the carrier might be hiding in some belt somewhere, dispatching fighters to another part of the system, but it would also need point defence provided by other fleetmates, otherwise the enemy fleet could just dispatch a wing of bombers to seek out the carrier.
Ummmm - Just No.
Carriers are VERY vulnerable, a couple of T1 frigates/cruisers can render a carrier harmless by scramming/damping it, then it is just a matter of breaking the tank. Damage is the same as Close range T2 battleship. These are NOT the solo mobiles you seem to think they are.
Skilling one to a high level takes many many more skill points (therefore Time) than skilling a BS, How would you feel if the change in question was
Quote: Hmmm BS are too solo pwnmobiles against cruisers, so we're going to limit you to 3 guns and remove your damage bonuses. Also the main role for a BS is SUPPOSED to be Gate camping so we are going to change BS's so that they can't use AB/MWD within 300 km of a gate - this will enfore the role by making them less likely to move away from the gate
The scale of the change above although purely fictional, is the same scale as the proposed change to carriers, less flexibility, less damage, more vulnerability for a ship that costs (on average) 10x as much as a T2 fitted sniper BS with huge skill requirements.
To put the relative skills in pperspective:
CARRIER Advanced Drone interfacing - skill lvl 8 Fighters - Skill lvl 12 Capital Energy Emissions - Skill lvl 10 capital Sheild emissions - skill lvl 10 Capital Shield operation - Skill lvl 8 Capital Repair Systems - Skill lvl 8 Jump Drive Claibration - Skill lvl 8 Jump Fuel Convvervation - Skill lvl 8 Jump Drive Operation - Skill lvl 5 Capital Ships - Skill lvl 14 Carrier - Skill lvl 14
Compare this to the top lvl BS skills
BATTLESHIP Battleship - Skill lvl 8 Large Gun Spec - skil lvl 8 Cruise Missile spec - lvl 8
The MINIMUM skill for carriers is the same as the MAXIMUM skill level for battleships and there are a LOT more of them.
Of course in order to get to these you also have to have most BS skills at lvl 5 as a prerequisite.
Carriers already require defensive support, their drones/fighters acn't catch inties, theri lock time is prohibitive and ther damage outpuut laughable for such a large beast.
I think your arguments are flawed
|
Kublai Khan
Caldari TAOSP Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 10:13:00 -
[1996]
The means to nuke a carriers offensive power is allready here, but in the huge fights that BoB vs RAGOONS is then the lag is just too horrid for anyone to really do anything and thus of course the defence against fighters vanishes as well. Not to mention that in the FAT battle, IAC/Goons couldnt kill one of our dreads cause they ran out of ammo and couldn't reload to kill it and it repped up from 30% structure. In that lays the problem for fighters as well.
Carrier pilots tend to go for other capitals or a swarm of battleships and all it takes is a few stealth bombers with bombs to decloack next to the friendly carriers / dreads and drop their bombs and there are no more fighters. Battleships / carriers can also field smartbombs and a bunch of those goes through 100 fighters like they are butter... Capitals arent affected by the smartbomb blasts at all, poorly setup battleships however will be screwed by friendly fire. But if you know youre going to face carriers, fit a smartie or two on your battleships and anyone who sends a fighter swarm will be rendered useless in very short amount of time...
The means to reduce their offensive capabilities are here, the lag prohibits their use like most other things. Maybe look at it from the economy perspective and how easy it now is to make ISK in this game... Make carriers more expensive then, make them cost what a dread costs or more so not everyone can get their hands on them as easily...
|
Garia666
Amarr T.H.U.G L.I.F.E
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 10:16:00 -
[1997]
Originally by: Delphi Disra THE minute this happens i quit eve.
I have not spent over a year training and 600m in skills so that i can fly a useless ship and let other people controll my fighters. Their is a reason capital ships are uber, they cost ALLOT and take ALLOT of time to get to fly.
THIS WOULD BE A KILLER AND YOU WOULD LOOSE SUBSCRIPTION TO ALL 7 OF MY ACCOUNTS!
i never said this before.. but if this goes in effect. can i have your stuff :) ?
->My Vids<- |
Rubyz
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 10:18:00 -
[1998]
I can't help but have to reply after reading this which I usually don't since I am so new to this game... but the suggestion of limiting the launch of fighter/drones for a carrier/capital to 5 and delegate the rest to other gang member is a bit dumb.
Even though the carrier is a support ship, it must have adequate means to defend itself. Do you see the USS Nimitzs launching 5 F-16 in wartime? If a carrier can carry 20 fighters, it must be able to launch all 20 in time of need.
"This means you will NOT be able to launch 20 fighters from a mothership and send them all to incinerate a battleship in .2 seconds." CCP Zulupark
You are comparing a mothership with 20 fighters which cost so much that I can't even comprehend against a BS that cost so little. Definitely those that cost more will win cause they are so much better, from the price point itself you know who will win. Try comparing it at the same level, 1 mothership + 20 fighters vs 1 mothership + 20 fighters. Have you try comparing a mothership + 20 fighters which can cost close to 16b with all the BS you can outfit and fully armed with the same cost? The next time CCP may just use a Titan vs a Frigate and start telling us it is so overpower and will have to nerf it a bit.
Don't fix something thats not broken and clearly this carrier/capital ship thing is not broken. Anyway.. don't listen to me... cause I have not pilot a carrier before but only watch CNN and National Geographic about carriers and their function
|
Druadan
Gallente Aristotle Enterprises Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 10:18:00 -
[1999]
Originally by: Cyan Nuevo You are also stuck in the mindset that more capitals = victory. This is the principle that CCP is trying to break. (Do you honestly prefer more capitals = victory to more skill = victory?)
In fleet battles, it is the skill of the commanders that makes the key difference, not the skill with which the fleet pilot targets and shoots the primary target.
Ships present in smaller numbers, such as capital ships, can often work as an organic group, but even then numbers is always an issue, and you can't ignore that no matter how tightly you clamp your hands over ears and shout SKILL IS BETTER THAN NUMBERS!
|
Buford Early
Wild Talents
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 10:21:00 -
[2000]
Originally by: Garia666
Originally by: Delphi Disra THE minute this happens i quit eve.
...
i never said this before.. but if this goes in effect. can i have your stuff :) ?
I never said this either, so I would like your stuff too
The carrier change somehow makes sense. A single player should not be able to control more than 5 at one time!
. Now that food has replaced sex in my life, I can't even get into my own pants. . |
|
Tulas Flint
Amarr Seraphin Technologies Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 10:26:00 -
[2001]
1. I think its my second post ever in eve-o since 3 years
2. i will quit eve if CCP makes this changes with carrier/moms
I didnt spent so much time and money into eve to get nerf by forum fu**** noob whiners !!! does we play now WoW ??? whine enough on the forums and they will change it.
this blog makes me really really angry
|
Garia666
Amarr T.H.U.G L.I.F.E
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 10:31:00 -
[2002]
Edited by: Garia666 on 23/10/2007 10:31:36
Originally by: Tulas Flint 1. I think its my second post ever in eve-o since 3 years
2. i will quit eve if CCP makes this changes with carrier/moms
I didnt spent so much time and money into eve to get nerf by forum fu**** noob whiners !!! does we play now WoW ??? whine enough on the forums and they will change it.
this blog makes me really really angry
ok buford.. you take his stuff ill go for the mc guy ^^
->My Vids<- |
Gyle
Caldari Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 10:31:00 -
[2003]
To all you anti nerfers. Sign my petition and support the caps!!!
My save EVE petition!
|
Rusty PwnStar
Rampage Eternal Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 10:33:00 -
[2004]
Originally by: Buford Early
The carrier change somehow makes sense. A single player should not be able to control more than 5 at one time!
The whole 5 drone issue was a lag reducing fix, that's why we got the extra skills, to bring them back into line damage wise. This nerf does not do that.
It removes the chance for any defence, when your friends have popped, so tell me, why should I fly an MS at all?
Regards Rusty
|
Queenann
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 10:36:00 -
[2005]
I beg to differ, the last post says a single player should be limited to 5 fighters or 5 drones, how can a single player defend them selves with only 5 drones.
The Royal Navy has Aircraft Carriers that in many respects do the same job as eve carriers, would the royal navy limit the number of aircraft on board so that enimies would have a better chance of competing in combat.
HELL NO, a carrier is for part of a fleet or when solo very capable of looking after it self.
I rest my case!!!! |
Silvitni
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 10:39:00 -
[2006]
Edited by: Silvitni on 23/10/2007 10:39:36 There is a petition thread about these changes here:
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=619601
silv
|
LordAdmiralAsriel
Amarr I.D.I.O.T.
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 10:39:00 -
[2007]
Oh the irony in this...
Not to long ago the discussion at CCP was "how to get carriers to the frontline", thus they changend things; now this stupid idea will almost glue every carrier to a POS again (the reasons for this were profoundly explaind many times in this tread).
I simply cannot understand the logic behind this.
--- Oderint dum metuant --- |
Jaleera Kaisin
Amarr Eve Defence Force Praesidium Libertatis
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 10:40:00 -
[2008]
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.
lets stop right there shall we - WHY?? why the change, there still has not been a clear explaination of why you want or see a need for this change
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
That's when we decided to just blog the idea, and get some feedback on 2 things: 1. Do you like this idea (that is the more-support-oriented idea)?
No - and I think it is clear that the commmunity in general does not
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
2. If so, do you like the approach we're thinking about (fighter deployment limits)?
No. See above
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
3. If you liked the idea but no the solution, what propositions do you have?
No - still don't like the idea
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
4. If you don't like the idea at all, why not?
I don't see what PROBLEM you are trying to fix here, carriers are fragile on their own, so this can't be to fix a solo issue, You are not proposing to reduce the Number of fighters available, so it is not lag you are addressing, "Spider Tanking" makes carriers VERY tough, but you are not looing to change that - so not sure what the issues it you are trying to fix??
If you think it is a balance problem please TELL us what you perceive the problem to be. We can't have a rational debate until you have articulated the problem you are trying to resolve. If there IS no problem then it doesn't need fixing.
this comes across as a coffe table discussion
"I know - lets make Carriers giant logistics ships" "Good idea - lets do it"
rather than:
"Hmm - there is a real problem/issue with Carriers and MS. It is . . .xxxxx " "Yes, lets do some research and present to the player base, we'd better remember that this represents 18 months time and a huge ISK investkment to each carrier pilot out there so we'd better be careful with what we do . . . it will be one of the biggest impact changes for individual we've ever made"
If you are worried about balance - try other fixes, if you take away completely the ability to assign fighters it will force carriers to the front, take away remote repair capability and it will force fleet support or the carrier dies. WE HAVE LOGISTICS SHIPS FOR LOGISTICS, why try to replace them with something that does not do the job nearly as well??
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
Now to answer a few questions that have arisen in this thread. Are you doing this to decrease lag No, this is purely balancing ideas, nothing to do with lag or server load
WHAT are you trying to balance?
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
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?
Because YOU (CCP) have forced it, the last round of changes was specifically to get carriers onto the front lone and away from POS, this puts them directly in the line of fire.
|
Inturist
Nuclear Reactor Inc INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 10:49:00 -
[2009]
Originally by: Hermaphrodiety
Thanks to Tieger for this brilliant sig.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Pallidum Treponema
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 10:50:00 -
[2010]
So.... Tabula Rasa will be out soon, won't it?
|
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 10:51:00 -
[2011]
Edited by: Kerfira on 23/10/2007 10:51:06 12 months ago... CCP dev 1: We have a problem. Carriers are not being used at the front line. CCP dev 2: Lets quadruple their HP's CCP boss: GO!
6 months ago.... CCP dev 1: We still have a problem. Carriers are not being used at the front line. CCP dev 2: Lets remove the ability to assign fighters from POS. CCP boss: GO!
Now.... CCP dev 1: We have a problem. Carriers are being used at the front lines. CCP dev 2: Lets remove their fighting ability. CCP boss: GO!
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Tulas Flint
Amarr Seraphin Technologies Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 10:58:00 -
[2012]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark Righto then.
Have you even played EVE or taken part in a fleet fight? Yes
no u didnt coz all the players which do it every day post here !!! see sig
this is the first CCP Epic Thread - gratz to ur first award (hopefully ur last one Zulupark!)
|
Edmond Parh
Universal Exports
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 10:58:00 -
[2013]
Is it not time for CCP to post a reply to this massive PR disaster and admit it was wrong to publish an idea that should never have been let out the box.
At least i hope thats how this will go, because if you are going to rip up the goal posts and move them that far, after so many of us have spent so much time and effort just to get into the ships then please dont be surprised by the response.
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 10:59:00 -
[2014]
Originally by: R0ger Wilco
Originally by: Kerfira ...
You have a spy in CCP dont you ?
Originally by: R0ger Wilco and OMG 77 pages of mostly protests CCP if you still go through with this it will be one of your most clueless buisnuss decisions ever, bye bye Carrier pilots and the acounts that they use for cyno alts. Actually come to think of it this is actually a fix for lag since so many people would leave so I guess if that is your goal you are spot on.
...and they STILL haven't told us what problem they're trying to solve
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 11:00:00 -
[2015]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark Righto then.
Have you even played EVE or taken part in a fleet fight? Yes
This 'fleet fight' was most likely when he got ganked by a mothership in 0.3.....
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Logicycle
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 11:10:00 -
[2016]
Originally by: Lucifer66 Edited by: Lucifer66 on 22/10/2007 17:39:43 I vote to fire zulu and use the money you would be paying him to buy more servers. A much better use of resources.
LOL
|
000Hunter000
Gallente Magners Marauders
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 11:11:00 -
[2017]
Originally by: Kerfira This 'fleet fight' was most likely when he got ganked by a mothership in 0.3.....
And got owned in his bs in 0.2 sec CCP, let us pay the online shop with Direct Debit!!! Magners is now recruiting, evemail me or Dagazbo ingame.
|
Druadan
Gallente Aristotle Enterprises Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 11:16:00 -
[2018]
Edited by: Druadan on 23/10/2007 11:15:40 78 pages and what do we get?
A thread trying to find out what bribery we'll accept so they can push this change through.
Unacceptable.
|
UGWidowmaker
Caldari The Ankou The Reckoning.
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 11:17:00 -
[2019]
officiel reply ? OMFG
I am the widowmaker stay tuned.
|
Seriya
Caldari Perkone
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 11:18:00 -
[2020]
Originally by: Kerfira Edited by: Kerfira on 23/10/2007 10:51:06 12 months ago... CCP dev 1: We have a problem. Carriers are not being used at the front line. CCP dev 2: Lets quadruple their HP's CCP boss: GO!
6 months ago.... CCP dev 1: We still have a problem. Carriers are not being used at the front line. CCP dev 2: Lets remove the ability to assign fighters from POS. CCP boss: GO!
Now.... CCP dev 1: We have a problem. Carriers are being used at the front lines. CCP dev 2: Lets remove their fighting ability. CCP boss: GO!
This made me laugh, and makes a good point I think.
|
|
julius tel'kash
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 11:22:00 -
[2021]
nerf of the carrier and MS =dead of this class ship
nomdidioux c'est qu'il veulent nerfer le seule truc potable du jeux ces con(-_-)
|
ER0X
Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 11:23:00 -
[2022]
Originally by: Matthew
Originally by: ER0X To the crux of the matter. In spite of previous dev blogs stating that drone boats would be un-nerfed
That un-nerf was largely directed at the smaller drone boats anyway, due to the need to limit their use of large drones via reduced drone bay sizes (i.e. you can't currently give a cruiser the ability to carry multiple wings of medium drones without giving it the ability to field a wing of heavies). The larger drone boats already hit the number-of-drones limit with the largest drones they can mount before they hit their drone bay size limit, so bandwidth was never going to make as much difference there.
I previously stated to you that I would not debate the finer points of capital ships with respect to this Zulu blog. Since this appears to be the basis, or hinge, of youÆre argument I shall indulge you.
ItÆs an extremely bold assumption on your part given the evidence. IÆm only going to treat the final statement with examination as the context of the piece points towards the final statement. The statement reads;
æIt's to un-nerf specialized drone ships and allow more differentiation between ships.Æ
This is a æUniversalÆ statement that also contains an æExistential quantifierÆ condition. In laymanÆs terms that means æfor allÆ and æthere existsÆ. That is it states æfor all specialized drone shipsÆ will receive a un-nerfing. Crow barred onto the end of this we also find the condition æthere existsÆ a differentiation in ships. This latter condition if taken in isolation could mean a variety of different things but for consistency we have to read it from within the context it is placed. It is a nested condition. This suggests to me that there will be a differentiation within specialised drone ships. Not that there will be a un-nerfing of one specialised drone ship over another. This appears to all as how you have interpreted this.
If I am not mistaken the Carrier class ship is a specialised drone ship and by definition is subject to the above Universal declaration? The Mother ship is also of the Carrier class, albeit a higher tier, and therefore should be subject to both the Universal, and to differentiate between the other specialised drone ships and the carrier, the Existential quantifier held within the statement. Best presented in the subtle difference between the Ishtar/Dominix/Thanatos No?
Although I may not have directly stated the fact but the subtext of my posts on this matter have been in reference to this one Oveur Blog and is the main argumentative reasoning in refusing to accept the vacuum created by a further Blog by Zulu which omits OveursÆ previous context and makes an assumption of over powered without definitive proof.
Finally in what way are any of these ideas presented either in ZuluÆs Blog or by you a Un-Nerfing?
|
Harkonin
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 11:26:00 -
[2023]
What to say?
Hey CCP Zulupark, have u ever though in cutting one of your arms and tryed to write this blog again without using the other hand. could be u will understand what are u trying to do with carrier pilots.
Seems that u are raising a nice carreer in this company getting tons of friends between all us.
And under my oppinion just dont even post again your ideas, just place they into a box and throw it into the deepest hole u can find.
Please dont even answer me, it's what u were going to do anyway.
|
Hysidee
Black Avatar
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 11:33:00 -
[2024]
This has completely baffled me as i cannot see any logic behind it. A few months ago, CCP changed carriers etc so that they couldnt hug pos's and this in turn would encourage pilots to get more front line action in there vulnerable carriers.
Now with this proposed change, it seems like they want carriers back as a pos hugging mode?!?!?! its all i see them doing if this comes into effect, as why delegate 10 fighters and control 5 at the front while risking your ass when you can just delegate all 15 and sit 50metres from a pos shield in relative safety???
Also, competeing with a domi in terms of dps i can control is just plain dam stupid, i'd prefer to sell my carrier and buy 10 or so domi's if this is the case.
CCP please think before you type rabble such as this!!!
|
Amaron Ghant
Caldari Ascent of Ages Dark Matter Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 11:34:00 -
[2025]
Edited by: Amaron Ghant on 23/10/2007 11:34:28 Edited by: Amaron Ghant on 23/10/2007 11:34:06
Originally by: Harkonin What to say?
Hey CCP Zulupark, have u ever though in cutting one of your arms and tryed to write this blog again without using the other hand. could be u will understand what are u trying to do with carrier pilots.
Seems that u are raising a nice carreer in this company getting tons of friends between all us.
And under my oppinion just dont even post again your ideas, just place they into a box and throw it into the deepest hole u can find.
Please dont even answer me, it's what u were going to do anyway.
There's no point posting this crap. Personally if I were the DEV in charge of deciding to implement or not, I'd say implement and BE DAMNED after reading some of the drivel posted here.
I'm against the proposal, so don't screw it up for me by posting inane drivel and personal insults. Get the brains you all say you were born with into gear and post well reasoned points as to why carriers and ms should be left alone. Otherwise it'll happen, you know it will.
|
Lazuran
Gallente Time And ISK Sink Corporation
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 11:40:00 -
[2026]
Why are so many people crying about lowsec camping Motherships and why is this accepted by so many people as a valid reason for nerfing Carriers and Motherships?
How is a Mothership camping 0.4 different from 20 BS / CS doing it, except that the Mothership costs a lot more?
* throw a bigger fleet at the 20 BS/CS and they will run or die * throw the firepower of 20 BS/CS on the Mothership (e.g. 5-6 Dreads) and it will run or die
(OK, the Mothership won't die if you cyno in a Titan and DD ... now that makes it a *lot* more powerful and unbalanced, eh?)
It's really silly. Yes, the Mothership is powerful and it is supposed to be, it costs 25b+fittings (often 60b+ total). Now stop whining and nerfing the game because there has to be a best combat ship in 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) |
Sixty Six
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 11:42:00 -
[2027]
Nothing really good about this idea. Carriers aren't overpowered now, carriers after this change will be just defenseless logistics ships which make useful haulers. Suddenly totally unappealing to fly them, CCP please think again or put some kind of capital into game which is not totally boring...YAWN!
|
Crovan
Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 11:43:00 -
[2028]
After reading and thinking a bit more, there are a couple of things I would like to add.
First, as has been stated, and as I would like to reiterate, the carrier is not a solo pwnmobile. I very nearly squeal with joy when someone reports a lone carrier somewhere. What that tells me is I need 5-7 people in the appropriate ships to go murder it. Arazu or two and a load of damage BS, maybe with some logistics drones or remotes in case someone takes a pounding from the drone auto-aggro after the Arazus dampen the carrier to buggery. That recipe + Gatecamping Carrier = Capital loot!
As Max Teranous stated in the thread regarding what people use their carriers for, any pvp alliance or corp worth their salt would need no more than 10 people in the right ships to take down one of these things. It's about tactics and approaching the situation with the weaknesses of the ship in mind.
As I have previously stated and will freely admit, the issue of motherships camping in lowsec is another problem entirely. The inability to tackle one is problematic, making the would-be commiters of matricide neut down their quarry below jump capability, while continually bumping it and subjecting themselves to smartbombs. At best, I think this situation requires a minor change, namely the aggression delay or capital scale scramblers I mentioned earlier. I have heard very little feedback (granted all of it positive thus far) on what I feel are constructive and effective counters to the issue of invulnerable lowsec motherships, while at the same time preserving the ability of carriers and motherships to govern their own drones.
As as been asked already, what happens, with the proposed changes, when the ship to whom the fighters are assigned pops? It was not that long ago that multiple fights were stopped down in IAC space (literally had GMs calling time out in local) so they could chase down errant fighters. Do we really want to mess with the mechanics any more?
My first impression was that these changes were designed to prevent the "UberDeathMachine" carriers/moms, but apparently there was also the issue of making them more specialized in a logistical role. In that case, again the answer is not a neutering of offensive capability, but rather a re-examination of the recent changes designed to make the carriers a logistical tool (read: triage modules).
Also, it seems strange to me, as well as to the others who have pointed it out, that one year ago, CCP was stating a desire to get these ships on the front lines. Now, they are there, and steps are being taken to remove their capability to effectively do so?
Between the mixed messages from CCP, the general outrage of the community, and my own shock at the incredibly counterintuitive nature of these proposed changes, I really don't know what else to say.
I can understand if the role that carriers find themselves in now is not the ideal role that CCP had envisioned. The fact is, though, that it is reality, and only an adaptation to that reality will be productive. Forcing this drastic of a paradigm shift will only lose you subscribers and make the players feel that anything they work for in the game can be taken away at the whim of CCP. Whether or not carriers are what they were invisioned to be, people have spent, collectively milennia of game-time training for them.
Assuming carrier training takes 1 year to complete, start to finish, each player has also spent over 350 USD in game time for the ability to fly these ships, let alone the ISK and training opportunity cost. Dismissive remarks by people with gold borders are not productive. Granted, neither is wide-eyed flaming by the players, but I have to admit I can kindof see their point.
Also, Er0x, I am so stealing that sig.
|
Reatu Krentor
Minmatar Void Spiders Fate Weavers
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 11:43:00 -
[2029]
I was theorycrafting and came to an interesting conclusion. If a carrier/mom is limited to 5 fighters a Moros would be doing more dps with its drones then said carrier/mom
|
Crovan
Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 11:45:00 -
[2030]
Originally by: Reatu Krentor I was theorycrafting and came to an interesting conclusion. If a carrier/mom is limited to 5 fighters a Moros would be doing more dps with its drones then said carrier/mom
So would a Rorqual...
|
|
Sentinel Eeex
Caldari DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 11:46:00 -
[2031]
Originally by: Isabel Sweet
And about knarfis said....motherships are not intended to use only 5 fighters alone. Because simply, in laggy environment new assignment of fighters is impossible. And yes LAG EXIST. We are dealing with it, reds are doing that, goons are doing that, no matter how hard are we smacking eachother. We are battling with 1-5 minutes of lag each time and somehow we are still liking that.
Exactly.
After 1 hour of nothing happening, me being able to lock 1 target and even shoot at it - I still somehow manage to convince myself that it was fun.
And then, instead of fixing lag, CCP "fixes" carriers/motherships.
Go figure.
|
Rake Mizar
Freelance Assassins
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 11:49:00 -
[2032]
Originally by: CCP Wrangler Making changes to EVE can be an easy or a difficult task, and a change that one person likes might not be palatable to someone else. However, these changes are made with the overall game in mind.
In what way? You define a solution to a problem that nearly 80 pages of people say do not exist.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler Zulupark makes his introductory Dev Blog from his new position in the Game Design team. Following in the footsteps of TomB and Tuxford, Zulu is now working on balancing different elements of EVE and one of the first projects he gets to work on is the relationship between Supercapitals, Fighters and Drones. Be gentle on him, he's got a tough one!
I think we've been as 'gentle' in our response to him as his proposal was to those of us that have invested 6 months to several years working towards fielding ONE ship.
It has been said elsewhere, but how can you expect your community to trust you when you even suggest changes that are so sweeping. Hundreds of pilots have made it clear that if you had told us from the beginning that carrier pilots could only control five drones/fighters at one time, we would have trained something else!
From a PR standpoint, you guys have hit rock-bottom and continue to dig. Get back to your roots, be more open with what your concerns and issues are. The carrier pilots are a segment of your most loyal customer-base. They have been with you a year to several years. Think of the experience in game that we have. Collectively, we know this game better than you, so please listen to our response before you implement a solution that is going to nullify so much of what we have worked for.
WTB: T2 Exotic Dancers |
Reatu Krentor
Minmatar Void Spiders Fate Weavers
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 11:51:00 -
[2033]
Originally by: Crovan
Originally by: Reatu Krentor I was theorycrafting and came to an interesting conclusion. If a carrier/mom is limited to 5 fighters a Moros would be doing more dps with its drones then said carrier/mom
So would a Rorqual...
I can picture it now... the carrier blobs getting replaced by Moros and Rorqual blobs
|
Harkonin
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 11:52:00 -
[2034]
Edited by: Harkonin on 23/10/2007 11:54:31
Originally by: Amaron Ghant Edited by: Amaron Ghant on 23/10/2007 11:34:28 Edited by: Amaron Ghant on 23/10/2007 11:34:06
Originally by: Harkonin What to say?
Hey CCP Zulupark, have u ever though in cutting one of your arms and tryed to write this blog again without using the other hand. could be u will understand what are u trying to do with carrier pilots.
Seems that u are raising a nice carreer in this company getting tons of friends between all us.
And under my oppinion just dont even post again your ideas, just place they into a box and throw it into the deepest hole u can find.
Please dont even answer me, it's what u were going to do anyway.
There's no point posting this crap. Personally if I were the DEV in charge of deciding to implement or not, I'd say implement and BE DAMNED after reading some of the drivel posted here.
I'm against the proposal, so don't screw it up for me by posting inane drivel and personal insults. Get the brains you all say you were born with into gear and post well reasoned points as to why carriers and ms should be left alone. Otherwise it'll happen, you know it will.
I have to say that I have not insulted any 1, I write my oppinion about a change that touches we all in the thing we like more, our character developement and capabilities.
CCP Zulupark as got an important position in this company and is moving towars a direct war to we all customers. Getting into a position of this level means that u have to think 2 times what u are trying to do because u will touch the way of playing of many people.
Do u want reasons? I can explain they again but i think that u have 2k posts telling which are those reasons.
Well, there is another choice. Since i have the power because i am the "Game Design team" and some people dont like to lose months and months of training in a close to useless ship after my "BRIGHT IDEA", then i will get the shortcut of applying my "BRIGTH IDEA" because I dont like some comments in the forum.
Just dont post your ideas if u dont want to get answers like those.
|
Hotblue
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 11:54:00 -
[2035]
I just had a thought, when this change comes, why not let carriers and mom's into high-sec. They are after all quite good at hauling and really they have less offensive capability than a BS anyway.
|
ER0X
Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 11:55:00 -
[2036]
Originally by: Crovan
Originally by: Reatu Krentor I was theorycrafting and came to an interesting conclusion. If a carrier/mom is limited to 5 fighters a Moros would be doing more dps with its drones then said carrier/mom
So would a Rorqual...
Indeed it would
Welcome teh Sig
|
Crovan
Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 11:56:00 -
[2037]
Edited by: Crovan on 23/10/2007 11:55:55
Originally by: Reatu Krentor
Originally by: Crovan
Originally by: Reatu Krentor I was theorycrafting and came to an interesting conclusion. If a carrier/mom is limited to 5 fighters a Moros would be doing more dps with its drones then said carrier/mom
So would a Rorqual...
I can picture it now... the carrier blobs getting replaced by Moros and Rorqual blobs
After a quick run through EFT, a Rorqual with max skills and 5 Ogre IIs would out-damage a Thanatos with 5 Firbolgs by 9 DPS. Factor in the increased tracking of Heavies over Fighters and the Rorqual becomes the next solo pwnmobile. Please leave our carriers with more useful solo offensive capabilities than a Rorqual.
|
Trishan
Green Men Incorporated
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 11:58:00 -
[2038]
I know the chances of this being spotted are pretty much nil but nonetheless....
I'm getting the sense that right now eve is in a point where small gradual changes don't work. Or won't work until all are in place, making them appear as not working.
The changes for the carriers come with a "we've been talking about them", and hopefully not but probably from a "we need to do something about the carriers". I think CCP should really sit down and start looking at the whole picture, instead of looking at small pieces of the puzzle and fiddling at what they don't like. Sit down, review your whole design plan paying special attention at the points of friction between player fun and expectations and CCP vision, and address the possible concerns holistically.
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
What we want is pretty basic: We want to make fighter wielding capital ships more reliant on their support fleet and less of a direct nber deathbringer.
Fine. We got a who, what, how, probably a when, but there's a why missing. Why is there a why missing?
And what exactly did you think you'd accomplish by posting this as it is? Its a humongous stick for anyone using caps, with no carrot whatsoever. You already could predict how many people would be against it on the forums. So either it was done out of naivety, an attempt to get people accustomed to it so that it doesn't create too much noise during the rev 3 launch, or just as a bargaining token to get to some middle ground (a la module compression nerfs) I don't like any of these posibilities, frankly.
Eve is supposed to be dark and dangerous. But it's also supposed to be fun for the players.
|
Soulita
Gallente Inner Core
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 12:01:00 -
[2039]
Edited by: Soulita on 23/10/2007 12:01:42
Originally by: Rake Mizar
Originally by: CCP Wrangler Making changes to EVE can be an easy or a difficult task, and a change that one person likes might not be palatable to someone else. However, these changes are made with the overall game in mind.
In what way? You define a solution to a problem that nearly 80 pages of people say do not exist.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler Zulupark makes his introductory Dev Blog from his new position in the Game Design team. Following in the footsteps of TomB and Tuxford, Zulu is now working on balancing different elements of EVE and one of the first projects he gets to work on is the relationship between Supercapitals, Fighters and Drones. Be gentle on him, he's got a tough one!
I think we've been as 'gentle' in our response to him as his proposal was to those of us that have invested 6 months to several years working towards fielding ONE ship.
It has been said elsewhere, but how can you expect your community to trust you when you even suggest changes that are so sweeping. Hundreds of pilots have made it clear that if you had told us from the beginning that carrier pilots could only control five drones/fighters at one time, we would have trained something else!
From a PR standpoint, you guys have hit rock-bottom and continue to dig. Get back to your roots, be more open with what your concerns and issues are. The carrier pilots are a segment of your most loyal customer-base. They have been with you a year to several years. Think of the experience in game that we have. Collectively, we know this game better than you, so please listen to our response before you implement a solution that is going to nullify so much of what we have worked for.
All I can say is lots of carrier pilots have voiced their concerns here. Understandable.
But do not forget there is other players in EVE as well.
And please, the comment "I have trained something now it will be balanced.... oh noes!" - Have heard that many times before, has happened to most of us.
Standard answer usually is "adapt or die", by the very same people that whine bitter tears now when they are effected themselfs.
Do these people request double standards for themselves I wonder?
Also please do not think most people in EVE would disagree with the planned carrier changes. Many do not post here because of the flamefest that is let loose for anyone in favour of the changes.
|
nyogen
Gallente Ninmu Seijaku
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 12:07:00 -
[2040]
OK, I didn't read all 70 pages. And no I don't fly a carrier but when I told my dear friend who is flying a carrier that I could bbq his archon in my drake post the proposed change he stopped talking to me
So, for the love of friends and family and social life please don't nerf the carriers, I want my friend to talk to me again
|
|
Attack Dog
Caldari Terran Robotics Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 12:08:00 -
[2041]
Dear ccp
1) i smell a scapgoat
2)i would like to ask if you could lock up the company's supply of nerfbats until revilations 3 comes out. i say this just because i know they have a itchin 2 whip them out.
AD
------sig starts here------ Don't be a noob, stop whinning 4 nerf's 2day |
ER0X
Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 12:09:00 -
[2042]
I agree with you Crovan Zulu is being overly vilified through out this. Some people are even calling for his/her job. The problem is that by putting his/her name to the Blog it unfortunately gave Zulu as an absolute reference point and outlet source of frustration for the masses.
|
Gartel Reiman
Project F3
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 12:10:00 -
[2043]
Quote: What we want is pretty basic: We want to make fighter wielding capital ships more reliant on their support fleet and less of a direct nber deathbringer.
I'm against the idea, because I don't see the need. From my point of view, your premise is flawed. The DPS a max-skilled carrier can put down on a target is the same that a close-range battleship can put down on a target (and of course the carrier costs 10 times as much ISK and vastly longer training times). Carriers are not 'direct nber deathbringers' and hence don't need their fighters nerfing.
If "it's unnecessary" isn't a valid enough reason to oppose the change, then see above for all the negative consequences that would result from this change.
|
Soulita
Gallente Inner Core
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 12:12:00 -
[2044]
Originally by: Hotblue
Originally by: Soulita Edited by: Soulita on 23/10/2007 12:01:42 All I can say is lots of carrier pilots have voiced their concerns here. Understandable.
But do not forget there is other players in EVE as well.
And please, the comment "I have trained something now it will be balanced.... oh noes!" - Have heard that many times before, has happened to most of us.
Standard answer usually is "adapt or die", by the very same people that whine bitter tears now when they are effected themselfs.
Do these people request double standards for themselves I wonder?
This is just flamebait, nobody who exists in a 0.0 alliance would ever agree with these changes, it makes owning carriers almost pointless.
The point of the planned changes is to prevent carrier and mom/titan gangs. That is a very solid reason for changing how these caps work now.
|
Eleana Tomelac
Gallente Through the Looking Glass
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 12:12:00 -
[2045]
Few thoughts : -Forcing people to do something is bad, you need to encourage them to do what you want.
=> 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. -- Pocket drone carriers (tm) enthousiast !
Say hello to my tiny friends ! |
kaahooters
Killson Corp Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 12:13:00 -
[2046]
Originally by: Crovan Edited by: Crovan on 23/10/2007 11:55:55
Originally by: Reatu Krentor
Originally by: Crovan
Originally by: Reatu Krentor I was theorycrafting and came to an interesting conclusion. If a carrier/mom is limited to 5 fighters a Moros would be doing more dps with its drones then said carrier/mom
So would a Rorqual...
I can picture it now... the carrier blobs getting replaced by Moros and Rorqual blobs
After a quick run through EFT, a Rorqual with max skills and 5 Ogre IIs would out-damage a Thanatos with 5 Firbolgs by 9 DPS. Factor in the increased tracking of Heavies over Fighters and the Rorqual becomes the next solo pwnmobile. Please leave our carriers with more useful solo offensive capabilities than a Rorqual.
.
NERF THE RORQAL!!!!
|
Frederik Andersen
The Ankou The Reckoning.
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 12:14:00 -
[2047]
Please don't change the carriers/Motherships into inactive support ships.
Why should a ship that takes 8 months to train suddenly not be able to fight back. They should be able to launch fighters, and have there support ability's boosted.
Make it easy'er to target gang members. http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d116/halibutk/Anti-Carrier-Nerf-Sig.jpg |
Crovan
Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 12:16:00 -
[2048]
Originally by: Soulita
Originally by: Hotblue
Originally by: Soulita Edited by: Soulita on 23/10/2007 12:01:42 All I can say is lots of carrier pilots have voiced their concerns here. Understandable.
But do not forget there is other players in EVE as well.
And please, the comment "I have trained something now it will be balanced.... oh noes!" - Have heard that many times before, has happened to most of us.
Standard answer usually is "adapt or die", by the very same people that whine bitter tears now when they are effected themselfs.
Do these people request double standards for themselves I wonder?
This is just flamebait, nobody who exists in a 0.0 alliance would ever agree with these changes, it makes owning carriers almost pointless.
The point of the planned changes is to prevent carrier and mom/titan gangs. That is a very solid reason for changing how these caps work now.
That is, in fact, not the stated aim. To be honest, motherships and titans will likely be forever out of the reach of a huge chunk of EVE. I know this was said about other ship classes before it, but I can't see a global income inflation on the scale that would be required. Many vets still struggle to afford both a dread and a carrier.
Also, to your first point, I cannot fly a carrier, yet I have posted two WoT posts trying to rationally argue against this change. Given that your statement implies that only carrier pilots were complaining, I urge you to take into consideration that there are those of us who are arguing for the sake of the game as a whole.
Yes, titan and mom gangs would be a bad thing. No, this proposed change is not the answer.
|
Soulita
Gallente Inner Core
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 12:22:00 -
[2049]
Originally by: Crovan
Originally by: Soulita The point of the planned changes is to prevent carrier and mom/titan gangs. That is a very solid reason for changing how these caps work now.
...
Yes, titan and mom gangs would be a bad thing. No, this proposed change is not the answer.
What would be the answer, I wonder? In order to prevent cap gangs, which do happen already, something needs to be changed.
|
Deacon Ix
Ascendant Strategies Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 12:23:00 -
[2050]
Originally by: Eleana Tomelac Few thoughts : -Forcing people to do something is bad, you need to encourage them to do what you want.
=> 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.
^^ This
Give a Bonus when deligated
even make a specific class for deligation, AFs where suggested earlier and would seem to be a perfect solution
|
|
Hotblue
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 12:28:00 -
[2051]
Originally by: Soulita
The point of the planned changes is to prevent carrier and mom/titan gangs. That is a very solid reason for changing how these caps work now.
Gangs like you describe are uber rare, gangs involving a couple of BS's and a carrier and a couple of smaller ships are not at all are, or overpowered, the carrier pilot is already taking a huge risk, this just goes on to make it defenceless.
|
Matthew
Caldari BloodStar Technologies
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 12:33:00 -
[2052]
Originally by: ER0X ItÆs an extremely bold assumption on your part given the evidence. IÆm only going to treat the final statement with examination as the context of the piece points towards the final statement. The statement reads;
æIt's to un-nerf specialized drone ships and allow more differentiation between ships.Æ
This is a æUniversalÆ statement that also contains an æExistential quantifierÆ condition. In laymanÆs terms that means æfor allÆ and æthere existsÆ. That is it states æfor all specialized drone shipsÆ will receive a un-nerfing.
However, it is also saying that there is a "nerfing" to "un" in the first place. Therefore, it is entirely reasonable to expect that any un-nerfing will apply to the drone ships in the proportions in which they are currently nerfed.
Now, if they'd used the word "boost", it would be a completely different kettle of fish, and I'd have to concede the point. But they specifically used the word "un-nerf". This means that there is a specific nerf that they will be removing, which is a completely different thing to saying that all drone ships will be made better.
The nerf that is being un-nerfed was specifically identified as being the current crudeness with which the size of a drone bay must be used to limit the size of drones the smaller specialised drone boats can field, which prevented the smaller drone boats from being allowed to hold several waves of drones in their drone bays.
The whole focus on the un-nerf was to add flexibility and redundancy in drone ship's drone loadouts, specifically without increasing the strength of drones they can put in space at any one time.
Therefore, it is entirely reasonable that the un-nerf will be in proportion to the degree to which the ship was affected by that problem in the first place. This is not through an active biasing towards any specific specialised drone ships, the same restriction is being lifted in all cases.
As carriers were being limited by the number of drones-in-space limit, not the size-of-their-dronebay limit, it makes sens that they would not feel any significant difference from the un-nerf, as they had no nerf to un.
Also, just because drone boats as a whole are to experience an un-nerfing, that does not preclude seperate changes being made to a specific group of drone boats, for reasons unrelated to the general un-nerfing that only apply to that specific group. The two events are not mutually exclusive. ------- There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines. |
Karen Vinderik
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 12:36:00 -
[2053]
Wow.....This sucks my dreams of shooting loads of fighters into battle is gone.... And ain't carriers useless without the ability to command that many?
|
Trojanman190
Murder-Death-Kill
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 12:37:00 -
[2054]
Originally by: Crovan
After a quick run through EFT, a Rorqual with max skills and 5 Ogre IIs would out-damage a Thanatos with 5 Firbolgs by 9 DPS. Factor in the increased tracking of Heavies over Fighters and the Rorqual becomes the next solo pwnmobile. Please leave our carriers with more useful solo offensive capabilities than a Rorqual.
I'm still laughing... CCP is insane... Everytime they release something cool [new t2 ships] they seem to want to do something stupid to compensate.
|
Imperial Auror
Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 12:37:00 -
[2055]
Originally by: Rake Mizar It has been said elsewhere, but how can you expect your community to trust you when you even suggest changes that are so sweeping. Hundreds of pilots have made it clear that if you had told us from the beginning that carrier pilots could only control five drones/fighters at one time, we would have trained something else!
From a PR standpoint, you guys have hit rock-bottom and continue to dig. Get back to your roots, be more open with what your concerns and issues are. The carrier pilots are a segment of your most loyal customer-base. They have been with you a year to several years. Think of the experience in game that we have. Collectively, we know this game better than you, so please listen to our response before you implement a solution that is going to nullify so much of what we have worked for.
Originally by: Clamn8er
This relationship is evolving as EVE moves well into maturity, but my feeling is that the player base and mother CCP are moving on different tangents. In this social progression, it is unseeming and bad policy to interrupt the flow of the game with sharp, knee jerk reactions that are extremely unsettling to the player base and become less acceptable with the ripening of time. It is bad policy and it is unwise politics.
Nerfs û or generally reversals of a position û create instability. On occasion, certain touch-ups and readjustments have been necessary and well received.
But in preparing to nerf carriers however, CCP are ignoring the iconic status that these have for the player base, both as something to strive for (as all of us carrier pilots and in fact almost every single new player û as we all once were û looking up at Capitals in awe knows), but also because of the enormous economic disruption of such a huge personal investment and the painstaking amount of time it took to get there.
nuff said??
LISTEN TO YOUR PEOPLE
.. and I ain't even a carrier pilot! |
Bon Hedus
Amarr O.E.C Legionnaire Services Ltd.
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 12:42:00 -
[2056]
Originally by: Soulita
All I can say is lots of carrier pilots have voiced their concerns here. Understandable.
But do not forget there is other players in EVE as well.
And please, the comment "I have trained something now it will be balanced.... oh noes!" - Have heard that many times before, has happened to most of us.
Standard answer usually is "adapt or die", by the very same people that whine bitter tears now when they are effected themselfs.
Do these people request double standards for themselves I wonder?
Also please do not think most people in EVE would disagree with the planned carrier changes. Many do not post here because of the flamefest that is let loose for anyone in favour of the changes.
Obviously you have no idea of how carriers/moms/capships work and you appear to be trolling. My probable answer if this ends up going through would be to set some very long skills and let my accounts lapse. I am starting to get tired of the thickheaded nerfing.
Amarr got nerfed way back when Mo0 pwned everyone around proving that there was serious imbalance in the game. Amarr got it again with the Nos nerf and Recons.
Missles nerfed, ECM, NOS, Drones, Nano's, Stabs... the works. Some were much needed, and others... well
The Blog by Zulupark was just insulting tbh. It lists proposed sweeping changes without answering the "why" are they needed. It appeared to be poorly thought out and is just begging to be flamed. Then Eris comes in and cherrypicks 1 notable (Verone) and calls the rest of the naysayers BIASED, making it appear that CCP is ready to push this through as their minds are already made up.
To try and post constructively... and to answer Zulupark
Carriers and Moms are not broken, they are not uber deathwielders and do not need "fixed"
To only allow 5 fighters or drones to be directly controlled by the carrier/mom pilot without significantly increasing their damage output and hitpoints is castrating the ships defensive capabilities. A lone carrier is already a sitting duck for a properly setup small gang. Carriers already need to fly in small gangs of support, they die way too easily alone.
Delegation of fighters in a fleet battle is next to impossible due to lag. Delegating 100mil of fighters to someone who doesn't have a clue on how to use them is just throwing them away.
(I am re-reading the blog as I type and the stupidity of the suggestions in it make me want to scream, or beat something with a very large weighted bat)
Carriers need to field large amounts of drones, they die very easily, the same as fighters. Carriers need to have defensive protection, beyond the support fleet that they are already in.
If you want to "fix" carriers to increase their use in a support role, then here are some suggestions:
1.donÆt change them as they are now 2.decrease their locking times significantly, they need to target those needing armor or shields quickly 3.fix the Triage mode. Give us a reason to use this travesty. Have it decrease locking times by 75%, make the carrier immune to damping/ewar, allow fighters to be delegated while under Triage mode, just not controlled directly by the carrier pilot, increase cap regeneration by 50% so you donÆt cap out your ship, and increase range of remote reppers under triage for starters. Also, cut the cycle time of the triage mode in half, as sitting dead in space for 10 minutes = a dead carrier. 4.lock Moms out of low sec space, or remove their Ewar immunity while in low sec. 5.boost the damage output of fighters assigned to gangmates 6.give bonusÆ to logistical drones launched by carriers (amount of drones/ amount repped)
These are just a few ideas for you to ponder.
-------------------------------------- Heavy Lag Spike II belonging to EvE Cluster Node #0815 hits your Connection, wrecking your latency to 998ms
|
Petit D'eath
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 12:43:00 -
[2057]
Originally by: Soulita
Originally by: Crovan
Originally by: Soulita The point of the planned changes is to prevent carrier and mom/titan gangs. That is a very solid reason for changing how these caps work now.
...
Yes, titan and mom gangs would be a bad thing. No, this proposed change is not the answer.
What would be the answer, I wonder? In order to prevent cap gangs, which do happen already, something needs to be changed.
Make them unable to remote rep each other - this won't stop the Cap gang, but will require that they have a support fleet (a use for logistics ship !!)
|
Eleana Tomelac
Gallente Through the Looking Glass
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 12:44:00 -
[2058]
Originally by: Deacon Ix
Originally by: Eleana Tomelac Few thoughts : -Forcing people to do something is bad, you need to encourage them to do what you want.
=> 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.
^^ This
Give a Bonus when deligated
even make a specific class for deligation, AFs where suggested earlier and would seem to be a perfect solution
Using the AF, known as 'useless in PvP' for a specific fighter squad leader group sounds great. But we don't want to limit too much the options, basically, any smaller than BS sized ship is great for this role (fear my rookie ship of doom!). -- Pocket drone carriers (tm) enthousiast !
Say hello to my tiny friends ! |
Crovan
Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 12:45:00 -
[2059]
Originally by: Soulita
Originally by: Crovan
Originally by: Soulita The point of the planned changes is to prevent carrier and mom/titan gangs. That is a very solid reason for changing how these caps work now.
...
Yes, titan and mom gangs would be a bad thing. No, this proposed change is not the answer.
What would be the answer, I wonder? In order to prevent cap gangs, which do happen already, something needs to be changed.
Umm...they do? I mean, to take down a POS, sure, but that's what the entire Dreadnought class is for. A gang of capitals actually isn't terribly efficient. It's hard to catch anything, hard to move around without half a dozen cyno ships running ahead of you, hard to find targets worth your time, etc.
Also, you clipped the part where I argue that your entire premise is fallacious, and that this devblog is not designed to do what you think it is designed to do. CCP states very clearly that it is meant to diminish the offensive capability of a carrier without a support fleet. What you are talking about is something else entirely.
|
Crovan
Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 12:48:00 -
[2060]
Originally by: Matthew
Originally by: ER0X ItÆs an extremely bold assumption on your part given the evidence. IÆm only going to treat the final statement with examination as the context of the piece points towards the final statement. The statement reads;
æIt's to un-nerf specialized drone ships and allow more differentiation between ships.Æ
This is a æUniversalÆ statement that also contains an æExistential quantifierÆ condition. In laymanÆs terms that means æfor allÆ and æthere existsÆ. That is it states æfor all specialized drone shipsÆ will receive a un-nerfing.
However, it is also saying that there is a "nerfing" to "un" in the first place. Therefore, it is entirely reasonable to expect that any un-nerfing will apply to the drone ships in the proportions in which they are currently nerfed.
Now, if they'd used the word "boost", it would be a completely different kettle of fish, and I'd have to concede the point. But they specifically used the word "un-nerf". This means that there is a specific nerf that they will be removing, which is a completely different thing to saying that all drone ships will be made better.
The nerf that is being un-nerfed was specifically identified as being the current crudeness with which the size of a drone bay must be used to limit the size of drones the smaller specialised drone boats can field, which prevented the smaller drone boats from being allowed to hold several waves of drones in their drone bays.
The whole focus on the un-nerf was to add flexibility and redundancy in drone ship's drone loadouts, specifically without increasing the strength of drones they can put in space at any one time.
Therefore, it is entirely reasonable that the un-nerf will be in proportion to the degree to which the ship was affected by that problem in the first place. This is not through an active biasing towards any specific specialised drone ships, the same restriction is being lifted in all cases.
As carriers were being limited by the number of drones-in-space limit, not the size-of-their-dronebay limit, it makes sens that they would not feel any significant difference from the un-nerf, as they had no nerf to un.
Also, just because drone boats as a whole are to experience an un-nerfing, that does not preclude seperate changes being made to a specific group of drone boats, for reasons unrelated to the general un-nerfing that only apply to that specific group. The two events are not mutually exclusive.
You're talking around each other and past the actual issue :P. Also, I agree with Er0x, but mostly because I like his voice.
|
|
Catholic Priest
A.W.M Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 12:56:00 -
[2061]
I don't see the point. ship that costs 1.5 billion isk + to fly correctly is suppossed to be able to kill a BS pretty easily? It can be jammed or damped or tackled easily enough. And they get killed quite often. Soloing carriers is a pain for PVP. hard to tackle your target. Hard to move Solo. Doesn't seem logical to remove it's teeth. It's suppossed to be deadly. It's a Carrier. if you wanna stop people from soloing plexes or mining or something to that degree this is the wrong direction. Last i checked fighters don't auto attack so any kind of EW ship in a small gang can lock down a Solo Carrier and make it useless. I just don't see the direction of such a change other than to upset the Capital pilots and make the Non Capital pilots happy that they can now tank a capital ship. which tbh a BS shouldn't be able to tank a Carrier unless It's tank cost as much as a Carrier. If i wanted to fly around in a 5 Drone max boat with a nice tank to pvp in I'd grab a Domi and fit the thing to tank 1500 dps.
|
The Economist
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 12:58:00 -
[2062]
48 hours, 80 pages and over 2300 posts detailing every reason under the sun why you should leave well alone (and even providing some interesting ideas to look at if you really want to fiddle with some content) and still no apology, no retraction and not even so much as a constructive comment from anyone at CCP; I'm getting worried.
Sig removed. Please keep sigs to 400x120 pixels and 24000 bytes in size or less. -Kaemonn |
toeslammer
Caldari The Dead Parrot Shoppe Inc. Brutally Clever Empire
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 12:59:00 -
[2063]
I have had a problem with Capital ships since they entered the game. Personaly, I think they should never have been introduced, but they were.
This change to carriers and motherships however is really STUPID. Why would anyone want a ship that they have paid that much for and spent months training for THAT CANNOT DEFEND ITSELF.
Move this Bozo back to where he came from.
|
Trishan
Green Men Incorporated
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 13:03:00 -
[2064]
Originally by: toeslammer
Move this Bozo back to where he came from.
You guys don't get it. The change was talked internally. This "Bozo" is merely sticking its head out and delivering the Message. It's not just his idea.
|
Futile Resistance
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 13:03:00 -
[2065]
Edited by: Futile Resistance on 23/10/2007 13:04:15 The geddon needs nerfin, yeah that’s right, it does lots of dps fast, and its frequently seen travelling in gangs.. its cheap as well and therefore a danger to EVE..
ok so it did not get nerfed, it got boosted.
Now nerf the carriers because they do less dps than a geddon and cost 10 times more?
I mean, wtf.. is this bull.
|
DefLeopard
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 13:04:00 -
[2066]
just to be specific, I have two accounts that will cancel if the changes go through as described - I am a bit tired of changes that are intended for larger gangs affect the small guy.
I just wanted to be specific. Another alternative might be reducing overall DPS, but obviously more than what 5 drones would give. WTF is the problem with having 13 drones anyway? Some decent carrier setups are well over 2billion - if we like to rat with tech I hobgoblins (hehe) why not?
-Thanatos Pilot
|
Sonos SAGD
Black Eclipse Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 13:05:00 -
[2067]
Originally by: The Economist 48 hours, 80 pages and over 2300 posts detailing every reason under the sun why you should leave well alone (and even providing some interesting ideas to look at if you really want to fiddle with some content) and still no apology, no retraction and not even so much as a constructive comment from anyone at CCP; I'm getting worried.
They are probally under orders not to respond until an offical thought out responce can be formed and the fire stops because if they respond wth any thing other than sorry, change they will be quoted ripped and flammed
They are probally having a meeting today to think of a new soultion based on what we have posted here against it and the 2 people for it and will probally see a responced wednesday or thurdsay
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 13:05:00 -
[2068]
Originally by: The Economist 48 hours, 80 pages and over 2300 posts detailing every reason under the sun why you should leave well alone (and even providing some interesting ideas to look at if you really want to fiddle with some content) and still no apology, no retraction and not even so much as a constructive comment from anyone at CCP; I'm getting worried.
Mushroom tactics....
"Keep your customers in the dark and feed them brown organic matter."
Standard SOE tactics... To bad CCP are emulating them.....
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Pociomundo
Gallente Aliastra
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 13:13:00 -
[2069]
Can we get a 50% isk reimbursement and the ability to redistribute even half the SP we have in Advanced Spaceship Command, Capital Ships and Carrier by removing these skills? _________________________________________________________
|
Kronn Blackthorne
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 13:16:00 -
[2070]
sign the petition
The Frenchy |
|
Rusty PwnStar
Rampage Eternal Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 13:18:00 -
[2071]
I would just like to know why tbh.
Regards Rusty
|
Vix Schwesa
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 13:19:00 -
[2072]
My name is Vix Schwesa, and I am a cyno-alt. Please think of me, and all of those like me that will be out of work, living on handouts of Long-limbed Roe's and Quafe because our former employers refuse to field a ship they can't properly defend.
Think of the cyno alts! |
Gnulpie
Minmatar Miner Tech
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 13:26:00 -
[2073]
Originally by: Soulita
Originally by: Crovan
Originally by: Soulita The point of the planned changes is to prevent carrier and mom/titan gangs. That is a very solid reason for changing how these caps work now.
...
Yes, titan and mom gangs would be a bad thing. No, this proposed change is not the answer.
What would be the answer, I wonder? In order to prevent cap gangs, which do happen already, something needs to be changed.
And why is a carrier gang bad???
If people are too stupid to counter such a gang, they have no busines in 0.0 or low sec! People are incompetent and stupid and then they whine and whine and whine and then CCP is going to nerf good things only because of those ***!
What do you want next time? Nerf BS gangs? Nerf cruiser gangs? Maybe we should fly all in reapers or just migrate to Hello Kitten. Hmpf!
If there is a problem then it is LAG and AUTOAGRESSION of drones/fighters. Because in lag drones continue to fight but you have no counter against this because you cannot react because the server (ccp side) is lagging.
THAT they should change in a reasonable way. And exeactly that they do not change! Because the amount of autoagressing drones is still the same. STOP AUTOGRESSION of the drones/fighters and things are better already i think.
|
Lazuran
Gallente Time And ISK Sink Corporation
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 13:34:00 -
[2074]
As for why this is happening, there are several interesting theories so far (more or less serious):
* CCP cannot handle the lag (which is caused by bugs in the drone/fighter code) and comes up with obscure reasons to nerf carriers instead of admitting it
* CCP employees got owned in lowsec by a mothership
* CCP are afraid that soon all older players will be in Capital ships and that will put a higher strain on the servers and scare off the newer players. It is worth noting that said older players usually pay for 2+ accounts and probably deserve to use more server resources.
* CCP's favourite alliance isn't the only one with plenty of capital ships anymore, so it's time to nerf them before they lose all their space.
* key designers have been taken away from EVE (to other projects) and noone in the game design team really knows the game very well. The whole ambulation stuff supports this theory...
* CCP wants older players to quit the game because they have amassed too much ingame wealth, many of them play the game for free anyway (by buying GTCs for ISK), so they are nerfing their solowtfpwnmobiles to **** them off. EVE is supposed to be a game for people who stay 7 months, right?
"...been designed for one purpose and one purpose only. Imagine a handful of repair drones pouring from the carebear's mouth. Now imagine they have um, nothing." -Unknown Hel redesigner (2007) |
Arondor
Digital Fury Corporation
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 13:35:00 -
[2075]
this is a colossaly bad idea... therefore it will go through EXACTLY as described... grow the BLOBs of battleships
|
Jordan Musgrat
Convergent Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 13:38:00 -
[2076]
Originally by: Soulita
Originally by: Hotblue
Originally by: Soulita Edited by: Soulita on 23/10/2007 12:01:42 All I can say is lots of carrier pilots have voiced their concerns here. Understandable.
But do not forget there is other players in EVE as well.
And please, the comment "I have trained something now it will be balanced.... oh noes!" - Have heard that many times before, has happened to most of us.
Standard answer usually is "adapt or die", by the very same people that whine bitter tears now when they are effected themselfs.
Do these people request double standards for themselves I wonder?
This is just flamebait, nobody who exists in a 0.0 alliance would ever agree with these changes, it makes owning carriers almost pointless.
The point of the planned changes is to prevent carrier and mom/titan gangs. That is a very solid reason for changing how these caps work now.
If you had ever lived in 0.0 you would know that there are never carrier/mom gangs without support already. CCP is claiming it's trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist. It's more like they screwed up early on and now want to change the role of the carrier, or they think this is less lag. Both of which are viable things to do, but first off they need to admit this, secondly think of a nerf that doesn't ruin the players' experience with these ships, which obviously this change would accomplish. -----------
Primary is family values, secondary is 0.0... |
Heckelgruber
Amarr Quam Singulari
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 13:39:00 -
[2077]
Apologies for any repetition of the ideas of others, I guess many are thinking the same thing.
- I disagree with the premise that carriers need a reduction in DPS or to have their roles clarified. - How would making them only useful as a logistics ships make any distinction in role from a logistics ship (apart from cost)? - Carriers die fairly easily if tackled by a well-setup gang, why do they need to be weakened? - If too many people are flying these without a fleet of support ships to protect them then perhaps it's because the risks of soloing aren't high enough. Why not look at increasing the death cost by lowering insurance payouts? - Carriers flying solo are easy to lock down with damps, making them harder to use effectively. Why not come up with a way of using gang size boost a carrier's scan resolution (or a bonus for targeting carriers with remote sensor boosters)?
Almost any change is better than this suggestion, I have never seen such resentment from the player base.
A year ago I was inspired by the idea of playing Eve because of the notion of one day getting to fly a carrier and control scores of drone fighters. Three months ago and unable to wait any longer I started another account JUST to train a carrier pilot from scratch. If a Thanatos has no more teeth than a well-skilled Domi with Ogre IIs then I don't see the point in continuing with that account at all.
Before you ask if you can have my stuff, yes you can. Although all I have is a Minmatar shuttle.
|
OMEGA 8473
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 13:39:00 -
[2078]
People calm down, you will not change anything.
Eve used to be a harsh and difficult game. It was not attractive to new players (so it was claimend). CCP made a business decision to change that and started with "enhancing the new player expirience" and give out ****loads of SP to new chars.
With all the changes made over the last year, CCP is trying "to level the field" as they want to attract new customers. That is why we are seeing these changes and more important that is why CCP is listening to all the "whiners". These "whiners" (as they are referred to by many in this tread) are mostly "Empire Dwellers" with no or little idea on how 0.0 functions. Just check your map, with Pilots in space and you will see, that approx. 3/4 of all Eve Players are in Empire at any given time. These kind of carebears (as they are referred to also) are the majority of the EVE Players (even if it is a silent majority.
Now take into account the new changes in Trinity: Graphics (ever zoomed out much in an fleet fight?) and PvE content mainly.
So what does this tell us? In my opinion they are slowly changing EVE into a more Mainstream, light game, mainly designed for the more casual (or one could say "not so dedicated") gamer, which more easily accesible content. Basically they are on the way of transforming EVE into Hello Kitty Online with Guns.
As a someone in this tread put it "customer rotation" is also a marketing principle. Obviously CCP changend their preference from the "long term subscriber" to the medium or short term subscriber, which will be easier attracted to a game which sets goals which are easier to reach (why train for a carrier, if it is only a better Domi which one could fly within two months).
And finally on a personal note: I spend nearly a year with this Char only training for a Carrier. He can barely do anything else, so I will have to terminate this char (yes you can have all my stuff for what its worth), if this change goes through.
Sorry for not beeing fully coherent in my post but I am pretty upset with CCP at the moment.
|
Pytria Le'Danness
Placid Reborn
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 13:42:00 -
[2079]
What I really dislike about this dev blog was my first thought:
"Oh, seems carriers worked well enough for long enough, so now we are going to reduce their efficiency so that alliances are not as threatened from an attack."
It would be ok if that was done shortly after their introduction - but now that carriers in their present implementation helped the current alliances to get where they are - nerfing them is a direct favor of the established alliances since it reduces overall fleet firepower.
To me carriers always were logistics vessels, but the fact that they are being targetted and damped too fast made them almost worthless - by the time they can lock a smaller vessel to repair it said smaller vessel is already a smoking wreck. In the old version on opposing fleet had to chose between going after the carrier and ignoring the support, or killing off the support. Now they can do both at the same time - by killing the ships with the assigned fighters they weaken the support fleet AND the carrier at the same time.
And I utterly fail to see the advantage of the change - unless reducing overall fleet firepower is the goal.
Oh, it does probably create a demand for more alt accounts which might be the major motive for CCP to implement it.
For me it makes carriers totally worthless. If that is changed, I'd like to have my skill points back please.
Corporation RP channel: "PlacidReborn" |
ER0X
Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 13:44:00 -
[2080]
Originally by: Crovan
You're talking around each other and past the actual issue :P. Also, I agree with Er0x, but mostly because I like his voice.
LoL. Well, we are and we are not Crovan. I say this because we both agree on the definition of what a Un-nerf is. We seem to have settled on it meaning æIt is the removal of a constraint or restrictionÆ. My friend here believes it is with regard to the drone bay size which, to be honest, is neither here nor there in the grand scheme of things.
This would be especially true if prior to the implementation of such a scheme we first constrain a subject within ever decreasing concentric or spheres of operation. The example being; absolutely destroying the defensive capabilities of a particular specialised drone ship. It would be of no consequence what size its drone bay would be. This is where my friend and I part company in this discussion. Therefore to wield the nerf bat in such a manner as this to later reclaim the original schematic as a buff would be disingenuous at best.
In fact, the argument pro ænerfÆ itself is deeply flawed it makes far too many assumptions, so much so, to those experienced appears based in fairy tail. In addition the reasons behind imposing such restrictions are not exactly clear, why are we even having this discussion, hence my debate and positioning on the issue but as yet have heard no reasoning.
|
|
SasRipper
DIE WITH HONOUR
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 13:50:00 -
[2081]
Quality to the Game Design emm relation being ???? prior experience is clearly not required at ccp.
Fighters are already laggy & hard to control never mind assigning them to people.
The argument of there being used as bs killers is just foolish in 1v1 & 2v1 situations I would choose my bs every time. In a 3v1 situation I would choose my faction bs over my carrier in 99% of cases. Only when is 4 or more bs vs 1 would I choose my carrier.
I find it unacceptable that ccp constant lean towards the blob from constant hit point changes to dps nerfs & tank buffs. Also the fact is that you will force a carriers/moms to be used in gangs of 3+ thus encouraging the blob.
*snip* Sas has spoken this tread shall be locked. |
Argyle Jones
Minmatar Wreckless Abandon Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 13:58:00 -
[2082]
A couple of times in the preceeding 79 pages of complaints against this brainfart CCP devs have replied that we should continue to post constructive criticism, and that we will be heard.
I seriously doubt that is true. Whenever CCP posts something in a dev-blog, it will happen sooner or later. When you proposed the NOS nerf, the eve player base came out in force on the forums and hundreds of replies with constructive criticism and (better yet) great suggestions for changing NOS were completely ignored as you went through with your own idea regardless.
I was well on my way to flying in a Hel class mothership. I have put all such ideas out of my head for the time being. I am only happy I haven't already bought one. Admittedly that makes me biased, but anyone actually playing eve should be considered biased...
As to criticising your so called 'idea':
- No-one is going to spend 30B+ ISK on a ship that can't defend itself.
- You can't make such dramatic changes once people have already invested their years and billions.
- Flying a glorified logistics boat just isn't fun. (Remember 'fun'? It's what we used to have)
- This change is in direct contradiction of your stated agenda to get carriers into the thick of the battle and away from the POS shields.
The list goes on and on.
/Argyle Jones
|
Par'Gellen
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 14:01:00 -
[2083]
Edited by: Par''Gellen on 23/10/2007 14:02:56 Zulupark, Interesting blog (I didn't read all 80 pages of this thread though). However, I think you are missiing the point. Think of it from the player's point of view. Who would really want to waste MONTHS of training time for this?
Speaking as someone who has flown a Thanatos on several occasions I can tell you NOBODY wants to spend that kind of time and isk on a ship that feels like a big paper bag with "SHOOT ME! I CAN'T DEFEND MYSELF!" painted on it. Ever watch a sci-fi flick where the lead fighter says something like "Go for the weakest ones first! Target the cap ships!" No.
Cap ships SHOULD be harder to kill, they SHOULD be very powerful, and they SHOULD be the next logical progression from battleships in my opinion. Otherwise why are we wasting our time training past that?
All this fancy shmancy complicated delegation stuff has it's place, but the middle of a lag filled fleet battle isn't it. So far I have yet to encounter a ship of any size more useful than a good old-fashioned battleship. Nerfing the one's that come close isn't a step in the right direction. I regretted wasting all that time on the big stuff before I read this blog. Now that I know what kind of wierd reverse-logic changes you guys are tossing around the discussion table I'll never bother with caps again...
Cap ships are supposed to be scary, not silly. ---
To err is human. But it shouldn't be the company motto... |
Serge
Amarr Seraphin Technologies Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 14:10:00 -
[2084]
easy solution to counter the proposed fighter limit:
Carriers / Moms delegate their fighters to each others so every ship gets max controlable fighters
needs how many carriers? around 3
does this prevent solo gank MOMs? no idea does this limit direct offensive capability of these solo gank low sec MOMs? jup does this limit direct offensive capability of carrier gangs of more than 2 carriers? nope does this add to making the game ever more unplayable? jup
in summary, this approach is plainly shortsighted imo
I might again point at excellent suggestions that have been raised: crovan's post --- Don¦t panic
|
Il Reverendo
Minmatar Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 14:13:00 -
[2085]
Originally by: Gnulpie
If there is a problem then it is LAG and AUTOAGRESSION of drones/fighters. Because in lag drones continue to fight but you have no counter against this because you cannot react because the server (ccp side) is lagging.
THAT they should change in a reasonable way. And exeactly that they do not change! Because the amount of autoagressing drones is still the same. STOP AUTOGRESSION of the drones/fighters and things are better already i think.
Don't know about you, but I watch my fighters like a hawk during fights, and they sure as hell don't wander round picking their own targets, turst me, I'd love it if they did in lag, but they don't.
|
klootoog
Mad Cow Productions
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 14:23:00 -
[2086]
Edited by: klootoog on 23/10/2007 14:25:02 well i think all arguments against nerfing them have been given..
Just another linky to the petition "dont let mommy down"
[LINK] http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=619601&page=17 [/LINK]
Proud member of Mad Cow Productions. Dont ask what Mad cow can do for you, but ask what you can do for Mad Cow... |
WhiteSnake
Deadly Addiction
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 14:25:00 -
[2087]
Edited by: WhiteSnake on 23/10/2007 14:26:03 @ CCP wranler can you adjust your sec status so we can place a bounty on your head?
it is a pretty cool way to see how much loved or hated you are atm.
people that are against that idea place + bounty people that in favor with this idea place - bounty
both parts will give isk from their wallet, votes dont come cheap.
(my personal opinion is that you will gona be philty rich)
|
Cyan Nuevo
Dudes In Crazy Killing Ships
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 14:25:00 -
[2088]
Originally by: Haakelen Also,
Originally by: Cyan Nuevo
But all this is all so utilitarian. Should we really operate on the maxim that carriers should be crazy-tanking damage-machines?
They're not. Fly one some time.
I may not have flown one myself but I've been in an alliance with plenty of them. So if they're not, why did I see things in alliance chat like "hahaha my archon is tanking all 20 of them"? Why did my battleship get melted at the hands of a single carrier? Why, when our gang of 50 jumped in on their camp of 20, did we lose almost all of our ships when they jumped in 6 carriers? Now, admittedly we did kill 3 of those 6 carriers... after MC jumped in 8 of their own. It's Capitals Online, folks.
Originally by: Kwint Sommer Try assigning and reassigning fighters to people during a large fleet engagement, it's nigh impossible to do.
Large fleet engagements are not what this is about. It's "nigh impossible" to do much of anything in large fleet engagements except F1-F8. Tell me this, in a large fleet battle, do your fighters even get anywhere near the target before they're obliterated?
Originally by: Kwint Sommer Even without the lag and bugs that make the actual assigning of fighters fail the system of assigning fighters is inherently flawed. That's why you don't see people doing it. You end up assigning 100M per person worth [...] he's still liable to loose them simply because he's too busy controlling his ship to notice them enter warp or get hit by a couple officer smartbombs.
So basically you're arguing that this change shouldn't happen because your corpmates don't have the skill to handle it.
Originally by: Kwint Sommer I know you don't like getting ganked by motherships in low sec but breaking two ship classes is not the way to remedy that.
My argument has nothing to do with motherships in lowsec.
Originally by: Kwint Sommer If you want to see a viable method of forcing carriers to always have a support fleet see some of my earlier posts.
Let me see if I got your idea straight: you think that carriers should be able to launch 5 drones of one type per gang member at once, but they'd be under the control of the commander instead of the carrier pilot? That drastically increases a carrier's damage potential (counterproductive) while putting the expensive fighters in the hands of someone else who is likely to lose them (counterproductive by your own argument). Even if the principle of the idea weren't so completely flawed and exploitable, a gang with 3 ships (say, recons) and 1 carrier would have the damage of a current mothership. Yeah, I can see where you're coming from as a carrier pilot yourself... --- Proud Amarr pilot.
|
northwesten
Amarr Trinity Corporate Services
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 14:27:00 -
[2089]
Originally by: Par'Gellen
Cap ships SHOULD be harder to kill, they SHOULD be very powerful, and they SHOULD be the next logical progression from battleships in my opinion. Otherwise why are we wasting our time training past that?
I just think they should increase the building requirments! as in more mins etc I think Cap ships way too common atm! more of Cap fleets than real fleets.
|
Coniglietta Magica
Slacker Industries Exuro Mortis
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 14:32:00 -
[2090]
No, this is stupid. Carriers are not the ultimate own mobile right now that people think they are. If you do this you need to lower the requirements and the cost of this ship. Otherwise there is no point training for the damn things. And thanks for all the time I have wasted training to get into one. Idiocy.
|
|
Cyan Nuevo
Dudes In Crazy Killing Ships
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 14:37:00 -
[2091]
Originally by: Haakelen Cyan, if your goal here is to go against the status quo of more ships = victory
That is not my goal. I am arguing against more capitals = victory.
Quote: More ships cause lag. Nobody wants lag. There's no fair way to solve that 'problem'. CCP needs to make the server work better. It's their problem, not ours.
I think Jita has taught us what happens when CCP increases the server capacity, though. It'll just fill up to the verge of unplayability again. The only solution is what CCP has been desperately trying to do for ages: discourage large gangs.
Quote: Nerfing isn't the answer. It just hurts the game.
Does it? Seems to me PVP's much more fun now without The Mighty Nosferatu. I actually had a fight the other day where I lost simply because I was outdamaged and outtanked and not just because I ran out of cap instantly and couldn't shoot for 90% of the fight. That made me happy. --- Proud Amarr pilot.
|
Blood Ghost
Occam's Razor Combine
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 14:40:00 -
[2092]
Originally by: Cyan Nuevo Why did my battleship get melted at the hands of a single carrier? Why, when our gang of 50 jumped in on their camp of 20, did we lose almost all of our ships when they jumped in 6 carriers?
Please just go work out the damage a carrier does yourself, it's not hard
Dragonfly Example:
Damage per Fighter = 75, Rate of Fire 6.38. Damage Modifier = 4.25 Damage Per Second = 49.9608 X Fighter Skill Level.
ThatÆs a max of 100 DPS per fighter. Assuming the carrier pilots has completely maxed skills thatÆs 1500 DPS (average would be closer to 900). ThatÆs not even 2 battleships.
So they could tank youÆre a couple of your battleships? There multi-billion ISK ships?! Bring a Dreadnaught or 3-4 blaster Megathron and see how fast you melt them then.
|
Flynn Tagart
Caldari Blood Eagle Federation Soldiers of the Forgotten Abyss
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 14:41:00 -
[2093]
CCP, I don't know why you had to promote an idiot to ruin the games great properties, and seeing as its said he has only spent 2 years at CCP, I believe that the players who have been here to bringing this game up to what it is are Senior to this Coffee maker. Anyone who has been playing since '03 are senior to zulupark (wtf kind of name is that seriously?) because they know more about the game than he does.
If you nerf the greatest properties of this game, then you guys might as well as merge with Sony, and call this Star Wars Galaxies: ALL SPACE VERSION/Without First Person since you guys are doing a hell of a great damn job of destroying a good game.
I did not spend up to 2 billion isk, just so a Battleship can be superior to me I am not saving for snake implants and Deadspace Hardeners just so I can lose them to a couple battleships, just because I only had 5 drones to throw at them at a time, and the drones not doing the job and being destroyed.
Zulupark, Go back to making Oveur's coffee, kissing his shoes shined, Maidening his office and house, and waxing his car. Oh, forgot, clean his toilet too. When your done with all that, go back to cleaning the rest of the real Game designer's houses and vehicles ________________ President of Blood Eagle Federation [B-E-F] Emperor of Soldiers of the Forgotten Abyss [SFA] |
CopyCatz
Caldari Adeptus Illuminati Aegis Authentica Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 14:41:00 -
[2094]
2 days, 80 pages, 2300+ posts and only 3 dev post that didn't give any insight on the matter...
|
Yourbane
Minmatar A.W.M Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 14:52:00 -
[2095]
Originally by: northwesten
Originally by: Par'Gellen
Cap ships SHOULD be harder to kill, they SHOULD be very powerful, and they SHOULD be the next logical progression from battleships in my opinion. Otherwise why are we wasting our time training past that?
I just think they should increase the building requirments! as in more mins etc I think Cap ships way too common atm! more of Cap fleets than real fleets.
OMG do you have ANY idea at all ??? Do you know what kind of farming it takes to get a carrier +skills + fits ? + 1 year at the very least to get it decent . If they're so common just get one instead of saying it should cost even more than its already ridiculously huge price.
Anyway here's my second thought about all this :
BUFF THE CARRIERS /MOMS, it is totally unacceptable that such huge ships have ridiculous amounts of cap/sec considering the mods they use for supporting, and its also completely unjustified that any random dampening cruiser can make the ship almost useless. oh yeah, and give us more high slots too .
NERF the dampeners, they should definitely have the same size-related problems as the ecms vs sensor strength.
|
Coniglietta Magica
Slacker Industries Exuro Mortis
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 14:53:00 -
[2096]
I agree with a post above, if you do this let me cycle my sp to something else or lose a sub, 2 if you count my alt. Sign The Petition!
|
Kublai Khan
Caldari TAOSP Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 14:53:00 -
[2097]
Edited by: Kublai Khan on 23/10/2007 14:55:53 I know alot of ppl won't like this, but I also know alot will like it.
So from what come out ppl agree that CCP are afraid of the "only" capital gangs and want to nerf them so other ships will be used. By far most ppl want the carriers to be front line ships tho, something too look forward to and a progression after battleships. I do see CCP's worries about this tho. But what is there that allows the "only" capital gangs that one have seen? Interdictors and their ability to go in, initiate warp and drop bubble and be out safe while the carrier gang can attack whats caught. If these ships were made into working like heavy dictors then there would be a bigger need for more support just to hold the enemy in place...
Dictors and the stupid hit and run method while leaving the bubble alive also make ppl less interested into comitting to battles that seems against their odds. If they had gone for it but are loosing, then most of them will die cause one guy could scramble 50 and all their pods would go down in flames as well. This is partly why speed setups are so interesting also as it lets ppl avoid bubbles easily. These ships removed lots of the tactics involved with pvping, its just drop bubble and gank everyone... It's booring compared to when we needed ceptors and cruisers to go in and tackle, ew and let the battleships deal the damage. Now you just need everyone in a battleship and 10 guys in dictors... Or as CCP worries about: 20 carriers and 20 dictors...
Scenario of how it can be today: we have a 50 man fleet wanting to jump into system A from B, this is a mixed fleet. In system A we have a 50 man fleet, mostly battleships at snipe range and 5 dictors. What will the fleet in B do? Jump in and go for it, maybe warp off to a planet and try and regroup and go back and hit the battleships? Well, they could, but chances are that most of their fleet will get caught in the bubbles dropped and ravaged by the sniping fleet.
Scenario of no dictors: Fleet in B can decide to jump in, either engage fight at the gate and send their fast ceptors and cruisers off to scramble the hostile battleships at range, while their slower heavy support kills the limited support at the gate. Battleships can hold cloack abit waiting for ceptors to close distance and start scambling and we could have potentionally a nice fight where the battleships juming in from B can warp off and come back again in if primaried because fleet in A didnt have support but brought only battleships.
CCP should drop this horrid idea of making capital ships useless for anything but booring POS warfare and rather give a bigger incentive for support to be on the field with the carriers and dare I say battleship groups. Make the carriers useless without their support. Interceptor changes are going in this direction allready, maybe some of the T1 cruiers could be given tackling bonus as well...
Find a new way for the dictor to work: For instance let it run a capital scrambler able to prevent jumping, let it bubble only work with the dictor on grid, or let it have a bubble that works the same way as the heavy dictors.
The current way that a few interdictors can do all the tackling job for a larger battleship or carrier only group, is at least partly whats causing the problem with the capital gangs. It's made the game very booring compared to how it was before for me at least. Instant scramble hundreds of ship by clicking warp, activate bubble launcher and fly off to let your huge gang annihilate everyone else is just stupid... At least mobile warp disruptors ties you down to one spot.
Incentives for support instead of removing Carriers from the game!
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 14:57:00 -
[2098]
Originally by: CopyCatz 2 days, 80 pages, 2300+ posts and only 3 dev post that didn't give any insight on the matter...
Dunno.... I think Eris' post provided us with more insight into how CCP works and how little they actually know of the game they run, than we really want
Because we don't agree with their 'grand' and 'informed' decisions (this coming from a dev who can't fly carriers and never has!), we're 'biased' and gets no cookies
Not only are we 'biased' when we expose their ignorance to how the game works, we also don't deserve to know what problem they're supposedly trying to solve is, nor do we deserve any answers.
I can really see only one reason for their behavior, and that is that they want us older players (12+ months) to leave
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
John McCreedy
Caldari Eve Defence Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 15:01:00 -
[2099]
After 80 pages I guess you've probably stopped following this thread but nonetheless, allow me to start this thread by saying welcome to your new job, probably the most thankless in CCP
Originally by: CCP Zulupark That's when we decided to just blog the idea, and get some feedback on 2 things: 1. Do you like this idea (that is the more-support-oriented idea)? 2. If so, do you like the approach we're thinking about (fighter deployment limits)? 3. If you liked the idea but no the solution, what propositions do you have? 4. If you don't like the idea at all, why not?
I'd say the answers generally are:
1. No, most people hate this idea vehemently.
2. As above
3. N/A
4. Because the role can be achieved more efficiently with a Logistics Cruiser which requires less investment in training time and ISK and can be replaced a lot faster than a Carrier can. Whenever making decisions on what to field, you have to look at the cost of performing that role. Why will I use a Carrier at a cost of 1 bn ISK or a Mothership at a cost of upwards of 30 bn ISK when I can use a Logistics Cruiser at between 1/10 and 1/300 of the cost? Is it worth the investment and training required for this ship if all I can ever hope to do is sit at a ss/POS and have increased micro-management because not only do I still have to look after my fighters but I also have to keep delegating them to disposable frigs?
These are the questions you should be asking yourself.
This proposed nerf, and let's not forget that it's only proposed at this time so give the guy a break, seems to be a typical knee-jerk response to the mob moaning about solo pwning Motherships in Empire. Well the answer to that is simple - stop them deploying fighters/Drone in Empire.
In summary, please try to understand that people are against it not because it nerfs their firepower but because it increases micro-management and prevents front line deployment which isn't going to make for a fun game for those of us specialised in offensive Carrier operations
Make a Difference
|
Coniglietta Magica
Slacker Industries Exuro Mortis
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 15:06:00 -
[2100]
Edited by: Coniglietta Magica on 23/10/2007 15:08:03 If you like your limited logistics carrier so much.. Add another ship to the game, don't **** everyone who has spent a year training to fly a "carrier".
Solution to mother ships in empire: Bandwidth jammers employed by factions, effectively limiting the available bandwidth to 5 drones. Sign The Petition!
|
|
Kronn Blackthorne
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 15:08:00 -
[2101]
Edited by: Kronn Blackthorne on 23/10/2007 15:09:27 u wanna stop MS low sec campin ? replace the uber usefull billboard ( ) by a special scrambler for MS , with a range of 100 km ( at 100 km if u get locked killed when u are at the gate , u deserve to die )), so people with a brain can kill it , and MS / carriers can still be used at logistics to go through low sec and able to defend at a station if they are bumped .....is that so hard ? this way u don t touch drones / fighters , just removing the low sec gate camping which seems the big prob
The Frenchy |
Gyle
Caldari Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 15:13:00 -
[2102]
Originally by: Kronn Blackthorne Edited by: Kronn Blackthorne on 23/10/2007 15:09:27 u wanna stop MS low sec campin ? replace the uber usefull billboard ( ) by a special scrambler for MS , with a range of 100 km ( at 100 km if u get locked killed when u are at the gate , u deserve to die )), so people with a brain can kill it , and MS / carriers can still be used at logistics to go through low sec and able to defend at a station if they are bumped .....is that so hard ? this way u don t touch drones / fighters , just removing the low sec gate camping which seems the big prob
Motherships in lowsec arent really a problem. After all it is low sec. if peeps coming back from jita laden with goodies are too dum to shove a scout in first then its pure darwinism in my book.
|
Xaeon
Murder-Death-Kill
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 15:13:00 -
[2103]
I really am curious as to why this even came to be? What exactly do you think it achieves? And do you think that they are capable of supporting the roles you have in mind?
If this is more a thing of changing them in low-sec, give them 0 drone bandwidth in low-sec when Rev III hits (thereby entirely stopping them launching any drones (fighters aren't the main issue in low-sec so far as I see it)).
Chapter VII 23/06/07 |
Kronn Blackthorne
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 15:14:00 -
[2104]
MS in lowx sec seems to be a prob because noobs can t find a way to kill it easly ....so just scramble it for them ...
and nerfing fighters / drones won t prevent those MS to just Smartbombs gates ....
The Frenchy |
Gyle
Caldari Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 15:17:00 -
[2105]
Originally by: Kronn Blackthorne MS in lowx sec seems to be a prob because noobs can t find a way to kill it easly ....so just scramble it for them ...
and nerfing fighters / drones won t prevent those MS to just Smartbombs gates ....
Meh what needs changing. the myth that MS cant be killed in lowsec has just been spectaculaly busted! And in less then 4 minuets if i recall.
|
Kronn Blackthorne
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 15:19:00 -
[2106]
Edited by: Kronn Blackthorne on 23/10/2007 15:24:30 i agree on all of this , but people not flyin a capital and posting in here just say bull5hit , so i try to confort them
sign the petition
The Frenchy |
Knarfis
Shiva Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 15:28:00 -
[2107]
Originally by: Jurgen Cartis
Originally by: Knarfis
1. Assigning fighters under current fleet conditions is near impossible due to lag This is a lag issue. It has nothing to do with the carrier or its abilities what so ever. invalid point.
4. This plan increases lag in fleet battles, need more people in them to assign fighters to. This again has nothing to do with the proposed changes. Lag is a completely different subject. If this is such an issue don't fly the damn thing in a lag filled environment. Be accountable with your assets.
6. Triage mode sucks donkey balls. Different subject and has nothing to do with what is being talked about here.
1. You absolutely cannot make balance decisions without considering lag and the general environment the ships will be used in. If they are intended to go into 100v100 fleet battle, their abilities must be usable under lagged conditions. Quite frankly, the drone menu is not cooperative under normal conditions, I shudder to think how well it responds in fleet battle.
It would be like Ford designing a car, and saying "we don't have to design with rain in mind, it has nothing to do with the car or it's abilities what so ever." The difference is that Ford can get sued when the brakes don't work in the rain.
4. Decreasing lag is also generally seen as a good thing. Having to have all your fighters out and assigned prebattle means there are a LOT more fighters flying around while everyone is trying to load the grid. This means more people getting to the battlefield and waiting 5 minutes to get their CONCORD mails. They also STILL haven't said what happens to delegated fighters if you're using 5 and your gangmate with the other 5 dies.
6. Triage mode is entirely connected with Carriers, though not as closely as Siege is connected with Dreads. It greatly buffs the attributes of Carriers that CCP is trying to promote here, and it failed horribly. The nonfunctional EW immunity is probably part of that, but if you want to discuss Carrier logistics, you can't sweep aside Triage.
You dismiss many attributes of this discussion as 'irrelevent'. Why? If they're making major changes to the way Carriers are used, it's all on the table, as tactics and roles for the 'new' Carriers will change drastically if this is implemented.
As an aside, my biggest beef with the whole thing is making Carriers equally effective hugging a POS as they would be at the front, assuming they fix the bug with assigned fighters not getting bonuses. Hugging a POS is not fun. I aspired to perhaps fly a Thanatos or Archon someday, but I do not aspire to hug a POS and relinquish control over MY drones to a half dozen interceptors. It's not fun, it's not epic, and it kills a Sci-fi dream.
Your right. Let me explain. Response to #1. This post started with the change in the drone usage with the carrier. Lag is an issue that always needs to be concidered, but it has nothing to do with this post. None of the dev said anything about that this change will help lag issues. Constructive criticism from you here, if the changes go through then CCP should make the carrier drone UI more usable in a lag enviornment.
Response to #4. See last responce. CCP never said anything about reduction of lag. This is a separate issue. Lag is an issue but has nothing to do with the drone assignment changes to the carrier. Its a secondary issue for another topic. Again i agree with you but what is the difference between now and when they make the changes?? In a fleet battle arent u assigning fighters to people anyways??
Response to #6. Triage is a huge thing with the carrier but that subject has nothing to do with this post. This post is about drone assignment and number of drones used. Triage needs to be looked at. Bring it up somewhere else.
The stuff i brought up as irrelevant is just that, irrelevant to this post
Knarfis
|
Ezzaron
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 15:31:00 -
[2108]
Originally by: Knarfis
In a fleet battle arent u assigning fighters to people anyways??
This made me lol
|
Coniglietta Magica
Slacker Industries Exuro Mortis
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 15:32:00 -
[2109]
Give us a 200% damage modifier on the drones then. =) Sign The Petition!
|
Tiberius Xavier
Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 15:34:00 -
[2110]
A solution to moms in low-sec is prohibiting smartbombs from working (like mobile warp disruptors and interdiciton spheres). This gives even a fully expanded transport ship enough time to warp off before getting locked. If someone is foolish enough to engage a mom in low-sec, then they deserve the consequences. We cannot solve recklessness and stupidity.
|
|
Cassius Hawkeye
Minmatar Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 15:36:00 -
[2111]
Edited by: Cassius Hawkeye on 23/10/2007 15:43:31 Just a quick message. I've been in this game 18 months but from day 1 (or day 14 after the trial account ended), flying a carrier was my overriding goal.
Ever since then i've been training to fly ships that would make me "useful", and that i could have fun in, but all this time each one of those ships was a careful piece of the puzzle, each one training a support skill so that when i eventually train my "Minmater Carrier" skill, that i could fly the ship semi decently.
For note i am still 3 months out from even getting in the ship, and from there my evemon stretches another year onwards in skills "perfecting" my chosen in game "career". Eventually one day i'd hope to afford a Mothership.
Many players posting have a right to feel angry that the ship they spent years training for would be so serverly nerfed that it wouldn't really be worth flying in battle.
From a perspective of a player that has spent 18 months training towards (and i'm still not even IN the ship!) and another 15 months at least planned of training - this really doesn't inspire me to stick with it. My in game goal is this, and it would effectively be "removed".
Please focus of reducing lag with regards to drones another way.
Carrier and Mothership pilots deserve the chance to defend themselves in a decent manner, with the timesink required for cap ships.
Thanks -----------------------------------------
|
Kronn Blackthorne
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 15:37:00 -
[2112]
Edited by: Kronn Blackthorne on 23/10/2007 15:40:08 nvm , out of props , this nerf is acceptable if u make fighters strongers , and that means 200% dmg / 200% shield , armor , structure / more tracking ,well , to be clear , atm the sux , any competent gang / guy can kill them ....
The Frenchy |
Yaay
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 15:53:00 -
[2113]
Edited by: Yaay on 23/10/2007 15:54:47 Edited by: Yaay on 23/10/2007 15:53:15 I'm very glad while the Devs don't want to address this issue in any manner, they don't mind going here:
Linkage
and acting like 5 yr olds. WTF happened to this company!
. http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=619019IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID |
Rangercameron2
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 15:54:00 -
[2114]
/signed - Hate to say it Zulu, but you're Corpies really left you out to dry on this one. If this was your own idea rather than being picked as the Sacrificial Lamb trotted out by CCP, it seriously makes me wonder.
|
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 15:55:00 -
[2115]
Originally by: Druadan
Originally by: Cyan Nuevo You are also stuck in the mindset that more capitals = victory. This is the principle that CCP is trying to break. (Do you honestly prefer more capitals = victory to more skill = victory?)
In fleet battles, it is the skill of the commanders that makes the key difference, not the skill with which the fleet pilot targets and shoots the primary target.
Ships present in smaller numbers, such as capital ships, can often work as an organic group, but even then numbers is always an issue, and you can't ignore that no matter how tightly you clamp your hands over ears and shout SKILL IS BETTER THAN NUMBERS!
Not exactly. The fact is that skill used to be greater then numbers. The problem is with the nerfs like this which "puts all ships on a level playing field" then the only way to win a fleet battle is to bring more numbers, not bigger ships requiring more skill to fly. This in turn just encourages or even demands the blob as it becomes a simple numbers game. If he has 5 ships and I have 6 I win.
The second problem with this whole idea is you have two developers who have openely stated that they believe carriers are an "I Win" button yet have never flown them themselves, and somehow fail to realize that a carrier has the same DPS as a battleship, and as it has been proven hundreds or possibly thousands of times over, carriers & even motherships are very easily destroyed by a small group of ships. It's very concerning that developers that decide the fate and direction of the game have such incorrect perceptions and have obviously never sat down with a spreadsheet to analyze the true capabilities of a carrier, but rather work on inccorect assumptions.
It's a disturbing trend in which CCP continues to follow.
|
|
CCP Zulupark
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 15:57:00 -
[2116]
Originally by: Yaay Edited by: Yaay on 23/10/2007 15:54:47 Edited by: Yaay on 23/10/2007 15:53:15 I'm very glad while the Devs don't want to address this issue in any manner, they don't mind going here:
Linkage
and acting like 5 yr olds. WTF happened to this company!
.
We are still monitoring this thread and reading the ideas that come up in it. We will, as previously stated, keep you up to date on any kind of progress.
|
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 15:58:00 -
[2117]
Edited by: Kerfira on 23/10/2007 15:58:55
Originally by: Yaay I'm very glad while the Devs don't want to address this issue in any manner, they don't mind going here:
Linkage
and acting like 5 yr olds. WTF happened to this company!
TBH, this REALLY demonstrates what CCP thinks of their paying customers
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Brigitte
S.A.S Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 16:02:00 -
[2118]
Originally by: XoPhyte
Originally by: Druadan
Originally by: Cyan Nuevo You are also stuck in the mindset that more capitals = victory. This is the principle that CCP is trying to break. (Do you honestly prefer more capitals = victory to more skill = victory?)
In fleet battles, it is the skill of the commanders that makes the key difference, not the skill with which the fleet pilot targets and shoots the primary target.
i totally agree here i think zulopark got ganked by a ms...hence the argh nerf the f-----ks
Ships present in smaller numbers, such as capital ships, can often work as an organic group, but even then numbers is always an issue, and you can't ignore that no matter how tightly you clamp your hands over ears and shout SKILL IS BETTER THAN NUMBERS!
Not exactly. The fact is that skill used to be greater then numbers. The problem is with the nerfs like this which "puts all ships on a level playing field" then the only way to win a fleet battle is to bring more numbers, not bigger ships requiring more skill to fly. This in turn just encourages or even demands the blob as it becomes a simple numbers game. If he has 5 ships and I have 6 I win.
The second problem with this whole idea is you have two developers who have openely stated that they believe carriers are an "I Win" button yet have never flown them themselves, and somehow fail to realize that a carrier has the same DPS as a battleship, and as it has been proven hundreds or possibly thousands of times over, carriers & even motherships are very easily destroyed by a small group of ships. It's very concerning that developers that decide the fate and direction of the game have such incorrect perceptions and have obviously never sat down with a spreadsheet to analyze the true capabilities of a carrier, but rather work on inccorect assumptions.
It's a disturbing trend in which CCP continues to follow.
|
Aerick Dawn
Gallente The Arrow Project Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 16:02:00 -
[2119]
If you haven't been a frontline carrier pilot its hard to know what is going through our heads.
For me its the following:
1) Scared to death I'm going to lose 2 billion in equipment. 2) Wondering if I'll lag out and lose all my fighters, again. 3) Can only realistically kill anything within my scramble range. 4) Can only kill something battleship or larger. Sometimes crusiers, but if its nano, forget it, same goes for BS. Fighters cant catch them. 5) POS gunners nuking the holy hell out of my fighters, scramble to either rep them or return them to drone bay. Frantically watch totally bugged to hell drone interface. 6) Lose 2 fighters on average if its a big battle. 7) Frantically try to repair people that request it, get *****ed at despite having the holy hell out of me dampened. 8) Be very close to other carriers, or I'm screwed. 9) switch to regular drones, because there is too much heat on my fighters, drastically reducing my damage.(this happens more often than you think) 10) If something goes to the crapper, hope to god exit cyno is made. 11) Spend 40million in fuel and blown up fighters on average per large engagement. 12) Get told I a pwnmobile, when I have lost two carriers to less than 10 person gangs.
I guess I can change to this after the nerf:
1) Go to POS 2) Dole out fighters, lose them to bugs, or idiot controllers. 3) Jam thumb firmly up my ass.
__________________ If I'm in a fair fight, i've done something terribly wrong. |
Sertan Deras
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 16:04:00 -
[2120]
Edited by: Sertan Deras on 23/10/2007 16:05:08 I am just curious. If CCP wants to nerf Carriers/MS to make battleships useful again...
Why are they releasing ridiculously overpowered Tech 2 battleships that will, in a year, basically make T1 battleships useless? Oh the price, the price...but people will pay the price to fly the best ship. So I say give it a year, T1 battleships will be like T1 cruisers, basically worthless if you can fly the T2 version. Way to have a clear, company-wide vision guys.
|
|
Kronn Blackthorne
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 16:05:00 -
[2121]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
Originally by: Yaay Edited by: Yaay on 23/10/2007 15:54:47 Edited by: Yaay on 23/10/2007 15:53:15 I'm very glad while the Devs don't want to address this issue in any manner, they don't mind going here:
Linkage
and acting like 5 yr olds. WTF happened to this company!
.
We are still monitoring this thread and reading the ideas that come up in it. We will, as previously stated, keep you up to date on any kind of progress.
at least u show us u are reading this , so if the change comes , we ll know u just don t care bout ur players
The Frenchy |
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 16:06:00 -
[2122]
Edited by: Kerfira on 23/10/2007 16:06:03
Originally by: CCP Zulupark We are still monitoring this thread and reading the ideas posts we agree with that come up in it. We will, as previously stated, keep you up to date on any kind of progress.
Corrected this for you. Eris made that fact plain for all to see.....
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
|
CCP Zulupark
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 16:12:00 -
[2123]
Originally by: Kerfira Edited by: Kerfira on 23/10/2007 16:07:29 Edited by: Kerfira on 23/10/2007 16:06:03
Originally by: CCP Zulupark We are still monitoring this thread and reading the ideas posts we agree with that come up in it. We will, as previously stated, keep you up to date on any kind of progress when we implement this.
Corrected this for you. Eris made that fact plain for all to see.....
"Cleverly" changing my post to make some point I'm not quite sure of what is will not change the fact that we are still monitoring this thread and listening to all ideas/complaints you have.
|
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 16:13:00 -
[2124]
Edited by: Kerfira on 23/10/2007 16:14:24 All flaming aside, I think the main complaint is that: You have not told us what the PROBLEM is.... Only thing you've said is that you're (effectively) removing carriers and motherships from the game.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Bishop Malkori
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 16:19:00 -
[2125]
Great keep messing with your end game ships and I'm going to go out on a limb here but I think you will start to lose your core subscribers like myself after spending billions to get my dread and carrier and the skils your going to nerf the crap out of them just because you can't come up with new ships or new advances so you just keep hacking away at the existing ones.
Just leave ships that exist alone do something inovative Zulepark doesn't have a tough one thats crap wrangler and you DEV team members need to work on more new types and models of carriers not pearing down the exisiting ones. Oh I see I trained fighters for months so you could nix it down to 2 fighters unless im hanging out with a fleet of 40 or 400 and then the node crashes since you can't seem to fix that part of the game either. How about focusing on the server problems rather than what ship to nerf or come up with better ships rather than cutting the guts out of all the fun ships.
Once again screwing over your core capital pilots that have spent years of subscriptions to be messed over by a brain fart of a idea by Zulu so limiting my drones and fighter which are the only defense for my billions of isk you can tell to shove his wait there is more and how he is going to screw carrier pilots over.
Once again Wrangler stop messing with current ships and make something new how about new carriers instead of tinkering with existing ones that would be quality assurance.
Bishop
|
Malachon Draco
eXceed Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 16:19:00 -
[2126]
While I am not opposed to the change in terms of stopping the 'omg carrier blob', after some more thought and reading some of the replies, I'm thinking that the fighter thing is not really the biggest issue.
50 Carriers are a huge problem because of the ability to spidertank, which is probably also the main reason people bring so many. Fighters are a secondary issue that stems from then having so many fighters on the grid.
If you want to effectively nerf the carrier-blob, you might actually need to nerf their remote repping capability more than you need to nerf their fighters.
Though for the fighters I would suggest some changes as well, but I would not call them a nerf. I'd roughly halve the number of fighters and double their hitpoints and damage, so that the effective DPS is the same. And I would make them about 50% cheaper to build, because atm they are rather expensive compared to their worth.
------------------------------------------------
|
Kronn Blackthorne
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 16:22:00 -
[2127]
Originally by: Malachon Draco
...Though for the fighters I would suggest some changes as well, but I would not call them a nerf. I'd roughly halve the number of fighters and double their hitpoints and damage, so that the effective DPS is the same. And I would make them about 50% cheaper to build, because atm they are rather expensive compared to their worth.
FFS when will people understand fighters sux ???? they don t need a 50% boosts but 200%
a fighter can t ****in track a cruiser , barely hit a BS ...any competent player / gang knows how to deal with fighters , and they will tell u they prefer fighting some carrier with fighters than nanoships ....
The Frenchy |
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 16:23:00 -
[2128]
Originally by: Malachon Draco While I am not opposed to the change in terms of stopping the 'omg carrier blob', after some more thought and reading some of the replies, I'm thinking that the fighter thing is not really the biggest issue.
50 Carriers are a huge problem because of the ability to spidertank, which is probably also the main reason people bring so many. Fighters are a secondary issue that stems from then having so many fighters on the grid.
If you want to effectively nerf the carrier-blob, you might actually need to nerf their remote repping capability more than you need to nerf their fighters.
Though for the fighters I would suggest some changes as well, but I would not call them a nerf. I'd roughly halve the number of fighters and double their hitpoints and damage, so that the effective DPS is the same. And I would make them about 50% cheaper to build, because atm they are rather expensive compared to their worth.
Carriers need their repping abilities to rep pos's and station structures.
|
Juggernaut Kell
Caldari 0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 16:24:00 -
[2129]
Thanks for saving me 2 bill, now I just have to sell the skillbooks I havent used yet and then not worry about spending 2 bill on a transport ship.
|
Cemial
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 16:28:00 -
[2130]
Instead of nerfing fighters, carriers and MSs add something to the game that could potentially have the same effect.
For instance, if a small ship (destroyer size?) could steal the control of a drone/fighter by hacking the communications between the owner ship and the said drone, that would force fighters and drones to be fielded together with other ships. The support fleet would be able to kill the drone hacker and ensure/recover control over them. That indeed would make "capital ships more reliant on their support fleet and less of a direct uber deathbringer"
For the sake of balance, the hacker pilot should have the skills to control those drones, both in number and types, plus the skills for the hacking modules. You should need a high energy module per drone, and you would have control over the drone for as long as the module was on, thus making it cap dependent.
Based on a destroyer hull with 8 high slots this could mean that a single ship would be able to gain control over up to eight drones. Also, destroyers are easy to pop, so any mixed fleet would be almost immune to them whereas a fighter blob would be vulnerable against a gang of these hacker ships.
|
|
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 16:29:00 -
[2131]
Edited by: XoPhyte on 23/10/2007 16:32:58
Originally by: Cemial Instead of nerfing fighters, carriers and MSs add something to the game that could potentially have the same effect.
For instance, if a small ship (destroyer size?) could steal the control of a drone/fighter by hacking the communications between the owner ship and the said drone, that would force fighters and drones to be fielded together with other ships. The support fleet would be able to kill the drone hacker and ensure/recover control over them. That indeed would make "capital ships more reliant on their support fleet and less of a direct uber deathbringer"
For the sake of balance, the hacker pilot should have the skills to control those drones, both in number and types, plus the skills for the hacking modules. You should need a high energy module per drone, and you would have control over the drone for as long as the module was on, thus making it cap dependent.
Based on a destroyer hull with 8 high slots this could mean that a single ship would be able to gain control over up to eight drones. Also, destroyers are easy to pop, so any mixed fleet would be almost immune to them whereas a fighter blob would be vulnerable against a gang of these hacker ships.
A destroyer can already kill a fighter within a few seconds. Fighters are ridiculously weak considering their price. The fighter, on the other hand, has no way to kill the destroyer as it cannot track or hit it effectively.
|
Dark Chasm
The Legends Veritas Immortalis
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 16:34:00 -
[2132]
VETO !
ffs carriers aren't all that strong they are not WTFPWN mobiles in any way! A carrier with no support is like meat for the grinder, can take it down with a few commandships np.
ANY proper carrier pilot ingame knows that without backup u can loose it to 5 moderately fitted bs. But use a carrier + a single bs and in combination with the remote reps for the bs u can win. You already need cyno peepz so there's nothing solo about a carrier.
I don't like the way ur pushing for purpose. yes a carrier is a logistic ship, yes that's the way it was intended. yes it has bonusses towards it. but almost all of the recent ship changes makes u forcing us into flying ships in a certain way rather then giving us the liberty to come up with our own configurations. You always try to show us how u want people to do their own surprising thing. You support that by putting in Rigs, Boosters and Heat. Then why do you start limiting it in other ways ?
I like rigs, but boosters and heat I don't, it's putting in elemants which are nice on themselves, but just make it more chaotic. and by nerfing all ships towards there intended purpose, ur just telling us how to play the game (or you're starting to) rather then the "figure it out for yaself" attitude which is the most attractive feature in eve. all other games hold ya hand. please don't make eve like that. __________________________________________________________________ á Don't worry about your beard, when your head is about to be taken áá áááááááááááááááááááááááááááááá- Sun Tzu, The art of War - |
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 16:36:00 -
[2133]
Originally by: Dark Chasm ur just telling us how to play the game (or you're starting to) rather then the "figure it out for yaself" attitude which is the most attractive feature in eve. all other games hold ya hand. please don't make eve like that.
Good point. The sandbox attitude HAS kind of disappeared lately.
|
Xilimyth Derlin
OldBastardsPub SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 16:41:00 -
[2134]
Edited by: Xilimyth Derlin on 23/10/2007 16:43:11
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
"Cleverly" changing my post to make some point I'm not quite sure of what is will not change the fact that we are still monitoring this thread and listening to all ideas/complaints you have.
Hey Zulu.... I've been working this thread for awhile (I'm at work currently -_-) Chronicling the constructive ideas, as well as creating a running tally for it (on two scales constructive and ALL posts) for both players either Neutral/For the Change and blatantly against it trying to keep a fair and neutral stance on it. (Perhaps I'm TOO dedicated, as even typing here could get me in trouble... but meh, it's my lunch break ^^)
Anyways, there are some major concerns that IF at all possible are recurring problems regarding the carrier pilots themselves, those working with carriers, and those working towards them. If you and the rest of your team can answer a few, even in the most simple examples, it'll help IMMENSELY:
1) What events and information brought about the change coming to? Carriers die repeatedly to organized fleets when left alone all the time by roaming gangs (granted some carriers deserved to die but...). Is it the proportion of Dreadnoughts to carriers? Low Sec motherships? An observation from Armageddon Day?
2) Carrier delegation is currently near impossible in fleet battles. I know the new game engine will fix some of this, but it's currently inefficient.
3) Real Life (gah! I know) Comparisons to modern warfare always have the carrier in control of the fighters, not only for its own goals, but for its own defenses.
4) There is great concern on what this will do to a carrier's solo ability to deal damage. It is a capital ship, taking immense amounts of time, cooperation and ISK to get spaceborne. If this goes through, it's 5 fighters are BARELY above a Dominix and definately far under DPS of a ganked out short-range battleship. The players understand this is a support-ship, but that might be going a little too low.
5) The logistic module was brought in to fit carriers into a capital logistic role. There ARE pilots like myself who intend to fit these even at great risk to the ship. Not all players fit this though, and not all get a thrill from being the 'healer'. The carrier fits a somewhat 'jack of all trades' position which allows these capital pilots that don't want to be healer or tank (POS attackers) to fill the other roles current missing at the capital level (capital destroyers have been brought up a few times).
Those are the prevailing issues that are in my mind without my notebook. I know there have been some great ideas too reguarding fighters and delegation if that's what you were proposing.
I forget who recommended it, but someone earlier said 'Delegated fighters give bonuses to the ship they're delegated to. For example, how about the Templar (when delegated) giving maybe armor resist bonuses or the like? It's a great idea that lets the carrier maintain its defenses, but makes it MORE then worthwhile delegating while still being given the choice.
I'm pretty neutral here, but the carrier pilots are making good points. Without understanding why, it just makes my analytical mind curious (remind me to find a more analytical job :/).
GAH back to work though -_-.
PS - I don't know if this counts, but I'll apologize for the communities actions. It's a sensitive topic with a lot of pilots either in or heading to that route. IF this is going through, a lot are wondering about SP reimbursement. That's a HUGE deal when people wonder that. -------------------------------------------
Carrier & Mothership changes - Voice your opinion here! |
Druadan
Gallente Aristotle Enterprises Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 16:42:00 -
[2135]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
Originally by: Yaay Edited by: Yaay on 23/10/2007 15:54:47 Edited by: Yaay on 23/10/2007 15:53:15 I'm very glad while the Devs don't want to address this issue in any manner, they don't mind going here:
Linkage
and acting like 5 yr olds. WTF happened to this company!
.
We are still monitoring this thread and reading the ideas that come up in it. We will, as previously stated, keep you up to date on any kind of progress.
The ideas? The only good idea here is canning this ridiculous change! What exactly are you monitoring in this thread, aside from the plain and simple fact that carriers are fine and don't need breaking. This thread shouldn't have got this far; we should have had a ''Sorry, guys, we didn't think that one through at all, sorry for spoiling your Sunday'' about 24 hours ago.
|
Shigawahhhhh
Caldari Metalworks THE INTERSTELLAR FOUNDRY
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 16:44:00 -
[2136]
Okay not long ago there was a nerf to carrier in there carrying capacity in the form of how giant secures worked. People winged about then what still makes it a carrier. People naturally replied about the drones and fighters...if you nerf them aswell...why is it a carrier? A carrier already costs roughly 2b+ to get into and fit. It should be better than a BS. You've already made them so there less effective at hauling. We can't run lowsec missions in them except for the few that are not deadspace. If you make them only able to lunch 5 drones/fighters of there own...I might aswell just get a domi and be done with it.
Also you make a mothership that has had its support wiped out or that just never had any...basically the same as a carrier only a lot more expensive.
So basically what I am saying is don't do it. Also since you seem hot on us assigning our fighters how about giving us health updates on them while there under a gang members control. Or even give the gang member proper health read outs...as long as someone gets them.
|
Randay
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 16:50:00 -
[2137]
I will be cancelling my carrier alt account if this change goes through.
|
Das Lol
Gallente Internet Space Fighters
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 16:50:00 -
[2138]
Originally by: Cyan Nuevo Why did my battleship get melted at the hands of a single carrier?
How did I know you would say this?
|
Malachon Draco
eXceed Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 16:55:00 -
[2139]
Originally by: XoPhyte
Originally by: Malachon Draco While I am not opposed to the change in terms of stopping the 'omg carrier blob', after some more thought and reading some of the replies, I'm thinking that the fighter thing is not really the biggest issue.
50 Carriers are a huge problem because of the ability to spidertank, which is probably also the main reason people bring so many. Fighters are a secondary issue that stems from then having so many fighters on the grid.
If you want to effectively nerf the carrier-blob, you might actually need to nerf their remote repping capability more than you need to nerf their fighters.
Though for the fighters I would suggest some changes as well, but I would not call them a nerf. I'd roughly halve the number of fighters and double their hitpoints and damage, so that the effective DPS is the same. And I would make them about 50% cheaper to build, because atm they are rather expensive compared to their worth.
Carriers need their repping abilities to rep pos's and station structures.
I realize that, but it is one of the issues.
Without turning this into a COAD discussion, BoB has been one of the parties sometimes bringing tons of carriers/MS to the field. So let me ask you, what would in your opinion be an effective way to stop the '50 carrier fleet'? ------------------------------------------------
|
Yourbane
Minmatar A.W.M Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 16:55:00 -
[2140]
Excellent job devs i think your provocative brainstorming might have worked (if you manage to read the interesting lines in 82 pages of justified anger :p
Now to all who post here please stop talking about carriers mkay, we all know they need a buff and not a nerf, so lets just talk about all the devs want to hear which is , what nerfs / buffs the game needs, and what your ideas are about it.
It is way too obvious that this supposed 'nerf idea' is a fake to make you all react, so lets just react the right way and get done with this thread :p
|
|
Sertan Deras
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 16:58:00 -
[2141]
Originally by: Kronn Blackthorne
Originally by: Malachon Draco
...Though for the fighters I would suggest some changes as well, but I would not call them a nerf. I'd roughly halve the number of fighters and double their hitpoints and damage, so that the effective DPS is the same. And I would make them about 50% cheaper to build, because atm they are rather expensive compared to their worth.
FFS when will people understand fighters sux ???? they don t need a 50% boosts but 200%
a fighter can t ****in track a cruiser , barely hit a BS ...any competent player / gang knows how to deal with fighters , and they will tell u they prefer fighting some carrier with fighters than nanoships ....
Unless there are 10+ Carriers in system, and they all fighterblob the system so bad it becomes a slide show...then Fighters are awesome.
Which highlights the REAL problem with Carriers and MS, which isn't damage. It's lag, which has been said about 5000 times in this thread, yet completely ignore in general by CCP. It's as if CCP is trying to make us forget the lag issue by diverting our attention elsewhere, "No, look over here easily distracted masses, there is nothing to see behind the lag curtain".
|
Krall Amarr
Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 16:59:00 -
[2142]
I wanna say a single words, player need more respect if 3k people say is idiocy, and developer say is good, sorry but player have rights. not developer.
Sorry but zulu need to play a loth more eve first than exit whit this sort of idea.
when 99,5% of player say no, i think this 99,5% of player NEED RESPECT AND TRUST FROM DEVELOPER. (and i not think more than 30-40% of this 99,5% fly carrier)
thx
|
Cyan Nuevo
Dudes In Crazy Killing Ships
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 17:01:00 -
[2143]
Originally by: Das Lol
Originally by: Cyan Nuevo Why did my battleship get melted at the hands of a single carrier?
How did I know you would say this?
I'm not sure, possibly because it's true? I'm not arguing for a carrier nerf because omg a carrier killed me once, that statement was proving the point that carriers, as they stand, do have significant firepower.
Is taking quotes out of context the best you can do? --- Proud Amarr pilot.
|
FLAME 61
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 17:02:00 -
[2144]
Lags is not carrier's problem/ this problem wits server, database, maybe lan or wan problem!
|
Blood Ghost
Occam's Razor Combine
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 17:04:00 -
[2145]
Originally by: Cyan Nuevo
Carriers, as they stand, do have significant firepower.
Meh I already gave you figures on carrier damage. Work them out yourself if you want....
Truth is any gank battleship would have melted that BS of yours if a carrier could.
|
Kronn Blackthorne
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 17:05:00 -
[2146]
Originally by: Cyan Nuevo
Originally by: Das Lol
Originally by: Cyan Nuevo Why did my battleship get melted at the hands of a single carrier?
How did I know you would say this?
I'm not sure, possibly because it's true? I'm not arguing for a carrier nerf because omg a carrier killed me once, that statement was proving the point that carriers, as they stand, do have significant firepower.
Is taking quotes out of context the best you can do?
ur whole complaint is comin from u getting smocked by a carrier .....lucky for eve players no Battleship killed ur shuttle , or we would see u arguing to get BS nerfed cause the yhave firepower
The Frenchy |
Mr NotSuspicious
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 17:06:00 -
[2147]
Originally by: Cyan Nuevo
Originally by: Das Lol
Originally by: Cyan Nuevo Why did my battleship get melted at the hands of a single carrier?
How did I know you would say this?
I'm not sure, possibly because it's true? I'm not arguing for a carrier nerf because omg a carrier killed me once, that statement was proving the point that carriers, as they stand, do have significant firepower.
Is taking quotes out of context the best you can do?
WHAT? A carrier killed a battleship?! Clearly they need nerfing, this is not how they were intended to be used. The carrier should have been sitting at a POS with its pilot afk.
|
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 17:07:00 -
[2148]
Originally by: Malachon Draco
Originally by: XoPhyte
Originally by: Malachon Draco While I am not opposed to the change in terms of stopping the 'omg carrier blob', after some more thought and reading some of the replies, I'm thinking that the fighter thing is not really the biggest issue.
50 Carriers are a huge problem because of the ability to spidertank, which is probably also the main reason people bring so many. Fighters are a secondary issue that stems from then having so many fighters on the grid.
If you want to effectively nerf the carrier-blob, you might actually need to nerf their remote repping capability more than you need to nerf their fighters.
Though for the fighters I would suggest some changes as well, but I would not call them a nerf. I'd roughly halve the number of fighters and double their hitpoints and damage, so that the effective DPS is the same. And I would make them about 50% cheaper to build, because atm they are rather expensive compared to their worth.
Carriers need their repping abilities to rep pos's and station structures.
I realize that, but it is one of the issues.
Without turning this into a COAD discussion, BoB has been one of the parties sometimes bringing tons of carriers/MS to the field. So let me ask you, what would in your opinion be an effective way to stop the '50 carrier fleet'?
I agree in regards to the CAOD discussion, as I rarely post there anyway. So lets talk casually.
The reason that we started to bring 50 carriers to an engagement, it was because you started bringing hundreds of frigates, cruisers and battleships to the battles, essentially forming a massive blob during every engagement. There has to be a solution to that many ships, and you do that by bringing "force multipliers". The carrier is that force multiplier today.
The downside of the force multiplier from our perspective is the tremendous amount of risk that is presented to ourselves everytime we field our carriers, as every loss for us is 2 billion easily, while every loss for the other fleet is only between 1-35 million after insurance (most people DO NOT insure their capital ships). Also it took our players over 1 year to be able to fly these ships effectively while it only takes a cruiser pilot 1-2 weeks to fly it effectively?
I have stated several times previously that a blob at ANY level is a bad thing. But you don't get rid of the blob by making every ship the same, in which the person with the more ships wins, rather then the side with better organization, better skills, better logistics etc.
I understand fully why Goonswarm bring massive amounts of ships to a battle, why wouldn't they? We have to do the same, but without having the same overall numbers we need force multipliers. Get rid of the overall concept that you risk more, you work harder and you can win, and change it to a game like counterstrike where everyone is basically at the same level and you get a pretty boring game imo.
|
Das Lol
Gallente Internet Space Fighters
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 17:08:00 -
[2149]
Edited by: Das Lol on 23/10/2007 17:09:47
Originally by: Cyan Nuevo
Originally by: Das Lol
Originally by: Cyan Nuevo Why did my battleship get melted at the hands of a single carrier?
How did I know you would say this?
I'm not sure, possibly because it's true? I'm not arguing for a carrier nerf because omg a carrier killed me once, that statement was proving the point that carriers, as they stand, do have significant firepower.
Is taking quotes out of context the best you can do?
Thanatos with Carrier 4/ADI 4/Fighters 4 and four DCUs with a spread of 13 types of fighters is around 1400 DPS. You can get over 1000 DPS in a Deimos or other blasterboats. A sieged Revelation can do more than 3500 DPS.
The damage output of a carrier is in line with its role as a capital combat vessel. That same Thanatos will tank around 2500 DPS. That is not as much as it sounds. I have personally seen a carrier annihilated in a little over a minute. And it wasn't untanked, either.
What you're saying is false. You come off as a bitter whiner, to me.
|
Sertan Deras
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 17:09:00 -
[2150]
Originally by: FLAME 61 Lags is not carrier's problem/ this problem wits server, database, maybe lan or wan problem!
Fighters are a serious cause of lag, because CCP's server hardware and server code can't handle the grid getting jammed with tons of little ships it has to track, which fighters are. The Carrier/MS's ability to belch out a ton of these in blobs can make a system unplayable. It may not be the "carriers problem", but it's directly caused by the way Carriers are used. It is very much the REAL problem with Carriers, whether they are the root cause or not, they are directly involved in some way in causing that lag. This is the issue that CCP seems to want to sweep under the rug. I guess they hope nerfing Carriers to uselessness will fix this problem.
|
|
Lightof God
Caldari Founder's of the Dominion The Dominion Empire
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 17:11:00 -
[2151]
Originally by: CCP Wrangler Making changes to EVE can be an easy or a difficult task, and a change that one person likes might not be palatable to someone else. However, these changes are made with the overall game in mind.
Zulupark makes his introductory Dev Blog from his new position in the Game Design team. Following in the footsteps of TomB and Tuxford, Zulu is now working on balancing different elements of EVE and one of the first projects he gets to work on is the relationship between Supercapitals, Fighters and Drones. Be gentle on him, he's got a tough one!
Fighters, Drones, Supercapitals and control. What's being considered? Check out Capital ships in EVE, what's up doc?.
And here I thought CCP actually listened to what its players said and thought. Excuse me for overestimating you guys, but this is the last step. You guys are just like the guild wars devs.
I will still play after you nerf one of my fav ships into bloody uslessness but excuse me if i stop caring if you guys drop dead.
|
000Hunter000
Gallente Magners Marauders
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 17:14:00 -
[2152]
The reason why people bring 50+ capships to a fight is...
Because they can
Do u need any other reason?
Now i'm not sure but i thought dreads were meant to be the anti capital weapon? shreading carriers and MS apart? Mebbe boost dreads to do more damage vs carrier/ms but nerf (can't believe i'm actually saying this as i will be pilotting one of these beasties soon) it's ability to destroy bs? Just a thought, not sure if it would work though. CCP, let us pay the online shop with Direct Debit!!! Magners is now recruiting, evemail me or Dagazbo ingame.
|
Gridwalker
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 17:14:00 -
[2153]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
Originally by: Kerfira Edited by: Kerfira on 23/10/2007 16:07:29 Edited by: Kerfira on 23/10/2007 16:06:03
Originally by: CCP Zulupark We are still monitoring this thread and reading the ideas posts we agree with that come up in it. We will, as previously stated, keep you up to date on any kind of progress when we implement this.
Corrected this for you. Eris made that fact plain for all to see.....
"Cleverly" changing my post to make some point I'm not quite sure of what is will not change the fact that we are still monitoring this thread and listening to all ideas/complaints you have.
Welcome to the Dev team, Zulupark. I said it before and I'll say it again: Clearly you are the victim of some bizarre and extremely cruel developer hazing. Your coworkers must have been snickering as you were writing this dev blog. Either that, or you lost a bet and this is your payback.
The ideas/complaints we have is that 99% of the people posting in thread believe this idea is one giant, steaming pile of suck. That you are still "considering" this idea at all, or anything even remotely like it, shows a total lack of regard to your customers and the opinions of thousands of players who have probably been playing EVE long before you ever even heard of the MMO.
What probably concerns us even more than any of this, however, is your reaction to this thread. I know I personally find it rather disturbing that as a developer and representative of CCP, you would resort to sarcasm and derision in your replies. It's a really bad sign for the future of EVE if this is how the developers really feel about us.
-Grid
|
0R1NOCO
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 17:14:00 -
[2154]
This whole event has convinced me to not try to sell Eve to my friends anymore. And unless they withdraw it and apologize, and treat us like the goddamn paying customers we are, I won't change my mind on that.
|
Cannizza Junior
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 17:27:00 -
[2155]
Originally by: Aerick Dawn If you haven't been a frontline carrier pilot its hard to know what is going through our heads.
For me its the following:
1) Scared to death I'm going to lose 2 billion in equipment. 2) Wondering if I'll lag out and lose all my fighters, again. 3) Can only realistically kill anything within my scramble range. 4) Can only kill something battleship or larger. Sometimes crusiers, but if its nano, forget it, same goes for BS. Fighters cant catch them. 5) POS gunners nuking the holy hell out of my fighters, scramble to either rep them or return them to drone bay. Frantically watch totally bugged to hell drone interface. 6) Lose 2 fighters on average if its a big battle. 7) Frantically try to repair people that request it, get *****ed at despite having the holy hell out of me dampened. 8) Be very close to other carriers, or I'm screwed. 9) switch to regular drones, because there is too much heat on my fighters, drastically reducing my damage.(this happens more often than you think) 10) If something goes to the crapper, hope to god exit cyno is made. 11) Spend 40million in fuel and blown up fighters on average per large engagement. 12) Get told I a pwnmobile, when I have lost two carriers to less than 10 person gangs.
I guess I can change to this after the nerf:
1) Go to POS 2) Dole out fighters, lose them to bugs, or idiot controllers. 3) Jam thumb firmly up my ass.
I couldn¦t agree more...
And the fact that a regular carrier fields 12 drones (average) and those 12 drones have less dps than a gank bs just doesn¦t help carrier pilots either.
I usualy field 3 of each fighter to give a mixed damage output, but even then I could tank my fighters with a passive vulture on an alt, in a regular pvp setup I use. People that say carriers are a uber killing machine doesn¦t know how hard it is to actualy kill ships with a carrier. It¦s not just a point and kill thing, if the target is more than 40km away from you by the time your fighters get there one of them will already be dead, if it¦s a BS you¦re fighting against and he has a good tank he¦ll probably kill 2 or 3 more fighters before deciding to warp away (tanking your fighters with him) leaving the carrier with ZERO defense for at least 2 minutes. (I¦ve already got my fighters pulled for over 5 minutes even though I was ordering them to come back at 3s interval)
Please before saying that carreirs are ubermegahyper killing machines play with one on the test servers (fighting with or against) and you¦ll realise that there are plenty of things a 2 men fleet can to to lock and kill a carrier, even with 12 fighters/drones. So imagine now if they have only 5!
|
Bon Hedus
Amarr O.E.C Legionnaire Services Ltd.
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 17:28:00 -
[2156]
Originally by: Robet Katrix i cant believe you ************ suckers put this **** on the test server
You have got to be kidding me... when did this happen?
-------------------------------------- Heavy Lag Spike II belonging to EvE Cluster Node #0815 hits your Connection, wrecking your latency to 998ms
|
Kwint Sommer
Incoherent Inc Otaku Invasion
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 17:30:00 -
[2157]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
We are still monitoring this thread and reading the ideas that come up in it. We will, as previously stated, keep you up to date on any kind of progress.
I bet zulu's not just reading the posts but cross referencing them with character data. Why? In the pitiful hope that he can find two carrier pilots that think this is a good idea. Then they'll send a survey to those two plus a dozen random others and publish the results. Then they can proclaim, "we know it's controversial but it's for the good of the game and there's even a significant number of carrier pilots that agree."
Lashing out at a Dev? Ya, I know it's poor form but he's threatening to arbitrarily destroy that which I spent 18 months training for. It won't just mean I've wasted billions and more than a year but the one thing that's always kept me grinding along was the idea that one day all of the ISK I was saving would put me in a mothership....
Well, maybe if I put forth a better idea:
If the squad/wing/fleet commander could control 5 drones/fighters per ship in the squad/wing/fleet regardless of which ship within the squad/wing/fleet they come from. You would still have the limited number of drones which is good for lag and having them centrally controlled would be nice for the fleet and probably reduce lag a little further. Also this would bring carriers closer to to how they should work than they currently are, especially motherships. It's hard to believe that a supercapital costing 25B can only control 20 hobgoblins at a time. Under this system that supercapital could launch all of it's fighters or two or three hundred heavy drones if it were in a fleet that large. Under this system a large fleet of say 50 ships would have a few carriers pumping out heavy drones that would be controlled as a massive squadron moving in formation by the fleet commander. This way a capital can't fight worth a damn on its own but in a large fleet it can send squadron after squadron of small but crippling drones to ravage the opposing fleet. This is how carrier combat works, a squadron of tiny little fighters each armed with a single torpedo can take down the largest of battleships in mere minutes but the carrier can only operate with a significant supporting fleet.
There's my idea, it would prevent carriers from being solopwn mobiles and from operating in carrier only fleets while still making them powerful and, well, carriers. Saying that they're still carriers may seem like a silly concept but a carrier that can only control 5 drones is not a carrier, it's a logistics ship with a giant drone bay and I speak for virtually all carrier pilots when I say that's not what I trained for nor do I want it.
Wonder what the odds are zulu or another -perhaps saner or at least game playing- Dev will read this? -------------------------------------------- So depressing....the really sad thing is I've always defended the Devs, even with the t20 business I said that he was the exception to the rule that the dev's care about the integrity of the world they've created and even more so their customer base. When desync was initially ravaging the game and devs seemed to care more about ambulation I said you were on it behind the scenes. When there were server crashes 4 days in a row I said it's probably just some hardware failure and you know how hard those can be to find, so ease up on them. Time and again I defended you guys because I thought you believed in something other than pursuing the highest number of subscribers. Now I don't know what to think for you clearly don't respect the integrity of your game and if you continue to push forward with this despite the 80 something pages -at the time of writing- of almost unanimous objection you clearly don't give a damn about the players. Sig removed. Please keep sigs to 400x120 pixels and 24000 bytes in size or less. -Kaemonn |
Kublai Khan
Caldari TAOSP Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 17:31:00 -
[2158]
Edited by: Kublai Khan on 23/10/2007 17:32:34
Originally by: Malachon Draco
I realize that, but it is one of the issues.
Without turning this into a COAD discussion, BoB has been one of the parties sometimes bringing tons of carriers/MS to the field. So let me ask you, what would in your opinion be an effective way to stop the '50 carrier fleet'?
Any weapon that does splash damage? In the blobs with 50 carriers, which happens when we expect to face your combined dread fleet, which during reinforcing was far above 50 dreads, (whats to stop those btw?) and that happend like twice in EVE's history. The carriers cant target anything anyway because there is like 800 ppl in the system. I spent 1 hour targeting and managed to target two during the FAT fight. After trying to lock a friendly dread for 30 mins manage to get a remote rep online.
If you go into siege somewhere, why dont you bring stealth bombers, fit battleships with smartbombs that you can warp to your dreads (who wont take damage) etc... to nuke a fighter swarm. Or get one of your at least 3 Titans come and DD the field?
The 50 carriers you only see in huge capital fights and comes with a few hundereds of support, titans and lots of dreads and is the only possible counter against 50 dreads (which still will manage to take down the tower if they want).
The carrier blob isn't the scenario that needs to balanse the carriers, and even then there are means to counter fighter swarms at your disposal.
Oh, and if you remove dictor bubbles the carrier blob won't kill anything worth of notice :D
|
Robet Katrix
Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 17:32:00 -
[2159]
Originally by: Bon Hedus
Originally by: Robet Katrix i cant believe you ************ suckers put this **** on the test server
You have got to be kidding me... when did this happen?
im being told about it from alliance chat as of now.
|
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 17:34:00 -
[2160]
Originally by: Robet Katrix
Originally by: Bon Hedus
Originally by: Robet Katrix i cant believe you ************ suckers put this **** on the test server
You have got to be kidding me... when did this happen?
im being told about it from alliance chat as of now.
If its true, whats the next MMO space game coming out? I would like to get in on the beta.
|
|
Cadela Fria
Amarr Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 17:36:00 -
[2161]
On SiSi After launching 5 fighters from their NYX (mothership), they were presented with:
17:14:18 Hint You don't have enough bandwidth to launch Firbolg. You need 0.0 Mbit/s but Firbolg requires 25.0 Mbit/s.
Speaks for itself.
|
Neoromi
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 17:37:00 -
[2162]
Originally by: Robet Katrix i cant believe you ************ suckers put this **** on the test server
If this is true...
|
Cyan Nuevo
Dudes In Crazy Killing Ships
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 17:38:00 -
[2163]
You guys are ridiculous. Even after I explain that I wasn't trying to say carriers should get nerfed because one smacked my battleship, you still hark on that. And I'm the bitter whiner?
I'm done with this thread. --- Proud Amarr pilot.
|
Blood Ghost
Occam's Razor Combine
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 17:38:00 -
[2164]
Originally by: Cadela Fria On SiSi After launching 5 fighters from their NYX (mothership), they were presented with:
17:14:18 Hint You don't have enough bandwidth to launch Firbolg. You need 0.0 Mbit/s but Firbolg requires 25.0 Mbit/s.
Speaks for itself.
You've got to be kidding me??? They wasted all that time implementing it? All this **** talk about listening before doing anything???
Hoping this is some sort of joke/rumour start
|
Coolgamer
Minmatar Res Publica R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 17:40:00 -
[2165]
Edited by: Coolgamer on 23/10/2007 17:40:14
Originally by: Blood Ghost
Originally by: Cadela Fria On SiSi After launching 5 fighters from their NYX (mothership), they were presented with:
17:14:18 Hint You don't have enough bandwidth to launch Firbolg. You need 0.0 Mbit/s but Firbolg requires 25.0 Mbit/s.
Speaks for itself.
You've got to be kidding me??? They wasted all that time implementing it? All this **** talk about listening before doing anything???
Hoping this is some sort of joke/rumour start
i really hope also...
this would be a total SLAP in the face of the community after they told here THEY WOULD let us know any progress on this idea
/me is ready to click on unsubscribe x 3 accounts
SAVE carrier and Moms |
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 17:40:00 -
[2166]
Edited by: XoPhyte on 23/10/2007 17:40:52
Originally by: Cadela Fria Edited by: Cadela Fria on 23/10/2007 17:38:19 On SiSi After launching 5 fighters from their NYX (mothership), with 5 drone control units fitted, they were presented with:
17:14:18 Hint You don't have enough bandwidth to launch Firbolg. You need 0.0 Mbit/s but Firbolg requires 25.0 Mbit/s.
Speaks for itself.
When several people said that CCP would ignore us anyway, I thought they were crazy. Seems they were right. I've never seen a company be successful by ignoring the majority of its customer base.
|
Xune
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 17:41:00 -
[2167]
Facts from the testserver
Carriers got 125 mb/s uplink
Drone controll units dont raise uplink
Fighters and heavy drones tech2 take 25 mb/s each
You cant launche more fighters if you delegated them. even if yous end all 5 to some one else you cant launch more.
You COULD launche up to 25 light drones tech1 tough.
If THIS is how ccp wants to make the game i vote with my wallet.
2 Acounts canceld, running out in 20 day¦s
Xune
|
Malachon Draco
eXceed Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 17:42:00 -
[2168]
Originally by: XoPhyte
Originally by: Malachon Draco
Originally by: XoPhyte
Originally by: Malachon Draco While I am not opposed to the change in terms of stopping the 'omg carrier blob', after some more thought and reading some of the replies, I'm thinking that the fighter thing is not really the biggest issue.
50 Carriers are a huge problem because of the ability to spidertank, which is probably also the main reason people bring so many. Fighters are a secondary issue that stems from then having so many fighters on the grid.
If you want to effectively nerf the carrier-blob, you might actually need to nerf their remote repping capability more than you need to nerf their fighters.
Though for the fighters I would suggest some changes as well, but I would not call them a nerf. I'd roughly halve the number of fighters and double their hitpoints and damage, so that the effective DPS is the same. And I would make them about 50% cheaper to build, because atm they are rather expensive compared to their worth.
Carriers need their repping abilities to rep pos's and station structures.
I realize that, but it is one of the issues.
Without turning this into a COAD discussion, BoB has been one of the parties sometimes bringing tons of carriers/MS to the field. So let me ask you, what would in your opinion be an effective way to stop the '50 carrier fleet'?
I agree in regards to the CAOD discussion, as I rarely post there anyway. So lets talk casually.
The reason that we started to bring 50 carriers to an engagement, it was because you started bringing hundreds of frigates, cruisers and battleships to the battles, essentially forming a massive blob during every engagement. There has to be a solution to that many ships, and you do that by bringing "force multipliers". The carrier is that force multiplier today.
The downside of the force multiplier from our perspective is the tremendous amount of risk that is presented to ourselves everytime we field our carriers, as every loss for us is 2 billion easily, while every loss for the other fleet is only between 1-35 million after insurance (most people DO NOT insure their capital ships). Also it took our players over 1 year to be able to fly these ships effectively while it only takes a cruiser pilot 1-2 weeks to fly it effectively?
I have stated several times previously that a blob at ANY level is a bad thing. But you don't get rid of the blob by making every ship the same, in which the person with the more ships wins, rather then the side with better organization, better skills, better logistics etc.
I understand fully why Goonswarm bring massive amounts of ships to a battle, why wouldn't they? We have to do the same, but without having the same overall numbers we need force multipliers. Get rid of the overall concept that you risk more, you work harder and you can win, and change it to a game like counterstrike where everyone is basically at the same level and you get a pretty boring game imo.
I'm a bit confused. Lots of people are saying fighters can't hit stuff smaller than a BS effectively, and yet in response to the enemy bringing tons of cruisers and other smaller ships, you bring 50 carriers?
How does that work? Can fighters hit the smaller ships? Or is the 50 carriers intended for the 'spidertank'? ------------------------------------------------
|
0R1NOCO
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 17:43:00 -
[2169]
Utterly ridiculous.
83 pages and you didn't hear a thing. Unbelievable.
You deserve to lose your entire playerbase and go out of business.
|
Pallidum Treponema
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 17:43:00 -
[2170]
Twentyfive hundred posts! MOST of them being totally against this idea in any form or shape.
And CCP actually go ahead and IMPLEMENT this???
Yeah, I was right to cancel my accounts!
To suggest this and not act when hundreds of people complain about this change is one thing, to actually go ahead and IMPLEMENT this, if even on the test server, speaks LOADS of incompetence! I absolutely love this game, but if this is the way things are going, I'm out of here. I have far better things to spend my time on.
I'm utterly outraged by this move!
|
|
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 17:44:00 -
[2171]
Edited by: XoPhyte on 23/10/2007 17:43:59
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
Originally by: Kerfira Edited by: Kerfira on 23/10/2007 16:07:29 Edited by: Kerfira on 23/10/2007 16:06:03
Originally by: CCP Zulupark We are still monitoring this thread and reading the ideas posts we agree with that come up in it. We will, as previously stated, keep you up to date on any kind of progress when we implement this.
Corrected this for you. Eris made that fact plain for all to see.....
"Cleverly" changing my post to make some point I'm not quite sure of what is will not change the fact that we are still monitoring this thread and listening to all ideas/complaints you have.
Guess Kerfira was more clever then I thought, cause he hit it right on the nose.
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 17:45:00 -
[2172]
Originally by: Malachon Draco I'm a bit confused. Lots of people are saying fighters can't hit stuff smaller than a BS effectively, and yet in response to the enemy bringing tons of cruisers and other smaller ships, you bring 50 carriers?
How does that work? Can fighters hit the smaller ships? Or is the 50 carriers intended for the 'spidertank'?
Most likely the carriers take care of hostile battleships, battleships take care of hostile cruisers and battlecruisers etc.... Makes sense.....
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Emelie
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 17:53:00 -
[2173]
As soon as someone joins the CCP game designs team or what ever you are nerfing something. No longer is just amarr useless now carriers and supercaps.
You dont know it but your killing your 10year vision of eve. You are word for word killing eve right now.
WoW starts to sound appealing and thats not even the right words to explain how bad this nerf is going to be for eve. "Aut vincere, aut mori"
|
Kwint Sommer
Incoherent Inc Otaku Invasion
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 17:54:00 -
[2174]
Originally by: Kerfira
Originally by: Malachon Draco I'm a bit confused. Lots of people are saying fighters can't hit stuff smaller than a BS effectively, and yet in response to the enemy bringing tons of cruisers and other smaller ships, you bring 50 carriers?
How does that work? Can fighters hit the smaller ships? Or is the 50 carriers intended for the 'spidertank'?
Most likely the carriers take care of hostile battleships, battleships take care of hostile cruisers and battlecruisers etc.... Makes sense.....
Have you seen hobgoblins tear into a frigate? How about a dozen of them? They may take a while to catch it but once they do the little buggers pop quick.
On a separate note, I'm tempted to cancel my accounts based on this hitting the test server but there's a chance that they really do just want to test it and once they see that it doesn't work they'll abandon it. Who's up for a big fleet battle on the test server using the new drone system? As so many forum warriors say, proof or STFU!
That said I've lost almost all faith in the devs over this and despite what we do they will probably just do it anyways. So, any news on ScarCraft 2? Sig removed. Please keep sigs to 400x120 pixels and 24000 bytes in size or less. -Kaemonn |
Idara
Caldari Contraband Inc. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 17:55:00 -
[2175]
3 accounts cancelled.
You guys are ******* ******s. ---
in EVE - Idara |
Raketefrau
Caldari Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 17:55:00 -
[2176]
For anyone who thinks that this is just in the "early discussion" phase, the change is already on SiSi.
|
wifi
Space Monkeys
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 17:56:00 -
[2177]
dont just say that you canceld your acc, probe it like this ! lets post all our cancel-messages !
Subscription Status: Cancelled Will be suspended20.11.2007 Cancel Subscription Cancellation Expires: 20.11.2007 23:40:37 Remaining Playtime: 28d:5h:49m
|
Hehulk
Black Sea Industries Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 17:57:00 -
[2178]
Serously, 84 pages of hate and then you put the changes on sisi!!
Is it not clear to CCP that these changes are a bad thing! ---------- It's great being minmatar, ain't it |
Sean Drake
Caldari Dirty Deeds Corp. Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 17:57:00 -
[2179]
Hmmmm well thats one way to reduce lag
Bye Bye
If Goons AND BoB are agreeing with each other that your idea is stupid, it's probably stupid. |
Xune
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 17:57:00 -
[2180]
Edited by: Xune on 23/10/2007 17:57:16 Subscription Status: Cancelled Will be suspended29.10.2007 Cancel Subscription Cancellation Expires: 29.10.2007 12:13:25 Remaining Playtime: 5d:18h:24m
I vote with my wallet ! do the same
|
|
jokerb
Caldari THE INQUISITI0N
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 17:59:00 -
[2181]
On SiSi?
CCP you have lied to me, consider this voice silent and my money no longer will be forthcoming.
|
Perpello
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:00:00 -
[2182]
It's on the test server despite over 80-pages of complaints?
CCP do you think we'll try out your daft idea and like it?
Click. Click. Click. Click.
The sound of revenue falling away.
|
Icome4u
Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:00:00 -
[2183]
Guys cancel your accounts, you are being treated like SH*T. CCP has ZERO respect for it's customers.
If this goes through ill be contacting newspapers. Maybe if CCP gets a lot of bad rep from it's own customers they will realize we DON'T appreciate being treated like sh*t.
|
Ztrain
Evolution Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:00:00 -
[2184]
Originally by: Kwint Sommer
Originally by: Kerfira
Originally by: Malachon Draco I'm a bit confused. Lots of people are saying fighters can't hit stuff smaller than a BS effectively, and yet in response to the enemy bringing tons of cruisers and other smaller ships, you bring 50 carriers?
How does that work? Can fighters hit the smaller ships? Or is the 50 carriers intended for the 'spidertank'?
Most likely the carriers take care of hostile battleships, battleships take care of hostile cruisers and battlecruisers etc.... Makes sense.....
Have you seen hobgoblins tear into a frigate? How about a dozen of them? They may take a while to catch it but once they do the little buggers pop quick.
On a separate note, I'm tempted to cancel my accounts based on this hitting the test server but there's a chance that they really do just want to test it and once they see that it doesn't work they'll abandon it. Who's up for a big fleet battle on the test server using the new drone system? As so many forum warriors say, proof or STFU!
That said I've lost almost all faith in the devs over this and despite what we do they will probably just do it anyways. So, any news on ScarCraft 2?
May as well cancel your accounts then it is on the test server. After launch 5 fighters you no longer have enough, "bandwidth" message to launch any more drones.
Told you guy's this wasn't a design screw up it was a code screw up in their new code that they don't know how to fix in even their new engine so have to come up with a reson to fix the code writing incompetence.
My accounts are all canceled and just waiting for them to expire. Or they make a public statement before that happens that they are not going to implement this.
Z CCP (Producers of Slide Show Online) takin the fun out of EVE, one patch at a time. |
Haakelen
Gallente United Forces Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:01:00 -
[2185]
3 accounts gone. You brought this on yourself.
I'll come back when you remove your heads from your asses.
|
Blood Ghost
Occam's Razor Combine
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:02:00 -
[2186]
Expires: 11/4/2007 5:47:36 PM
As is stands I see no reason to extend my account time
|
Dominator9987
Minmatar The Shambling Horde
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:04:00 -
[2187]
Edited by: Dominator9987 on 23/10/2007 18:04:40
Originally by: Icome4u Guys cancel your accounts, you are being treated like SH*T. CCP has ZERO respect for it's customers.
If this goes through ill be contacting newspapers. Maybe if CCP gets a lot of bad rep from it's own customers they will realize we DON'T appreciate being treated like sh*t.
I have 4 accounts to cancel, I will wait and see if they have the audacity / self-righteousness to go through with this.
Perhaps its time we look around for another persistant space game. This one was good until the nerf bat came out and started making it bleed out quality.
|
Coolgamer
Minmatar Res Publica R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:05:00 -
[2188]
3 accounts cancelled too
this is outrageous and ridiculous, they totally forget WHO pay this F**** game and their salaries...
---
SAVE carrier and Moms |
wifi
Space Monkeys
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:05:00 -
[2189]
Originally by: Dominator9987
Originally by: Icome4u Guys cancel your accounts, you are being treated like SH*T. CCP has ZERO respect for it's customers.
If this goes through ill be contacting newspapers. Maybe if CCP gets a lot of bad rep from it's own customers they will realize we DON'T appreciate being treated like sh*t.
I have 4 accounts to cancel, I will wait and see if they have the audacity / self-righteousness to go through with this.
cancel them right away. You will have some day¦s remaining probably. and it add¦s a little more pressure. showing its not just a simple sentance but what your realy intending to do
|
Baun
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:06:00 -
[2190]
Edited by: Baun on 23/10/2007 18:06:02
Originally by: Vily Zulupark you scumbag.
still listening my ******* ass.
three more accounts cancelled. and i hope you guys enjoy chatting with Visa because i fully intend to contest my last round of account renewals under a change in service.
This sounds like a plan to me.
I'll give lil old CC company a call today.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
|
Caine Azuris
Stain independant mining and manufacture company
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:06:00 -
[2191]
Subscription Status: Cancelled Will be suspended14-11-2007 Cancel Subscription Cancellation Expires: 14-11-2007 15:36:45 Remaining Playtime: 21d:21h:34m
|
Spike 68
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:08:00 -
[2192]
Boredom during class = hilarity
THE ADVENTURES OF NERFGUN!
|
Larsonist
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:08:00 -
[2193]
So i had this hypothetical convo with Zulupark.
lars> hi dude, just wanted to talk about this nerf. zulupark> shall i put a flame ******ent suit on now or should i just wait till you are done? lars> na na, i just want to ask some questions regarding this massively interesting change. lars> so, why the change? zulupark> well, when we implemented capital ships, their main focus on the field of battle was to be that of support/fleet mobility with the intent of adding firepower/protection to fighting forces in the same grid. lars> interesting, isnt that what they are doing now? zulupark> yes to some extent, but unfortunately because of the sheer numbers of them and their ability to lopside battles instantly without even the use of the support capability, we felt a need to alter their current use from a fighting solo and fighting fleet ship to more of a intended logistical craft. lars> well it still is a fighting fleet ship with the change, its just going to be alot more difficult to implement the delegation for attackers. zulupark> no it wont lars> i see. well how do you intend to deal with attacking forces jumping into grids where defending forces already have their delegation prepared? zulupark> that will be left up to attacking forces to figure out. its never been easy to attack, why should it be now. lars> well that was a nice dodge zulupark>lars...my suit is almost on bud lars> na na, i was just hoping for a bit more. ok next question.. lars> i know there is no lag or desyncing on the servers, but... zulupark> if there is lag on the server its from you guys blobbing each other WITH carrier waves which is why we want to implement this change. it will force people to rethink their use of the carrier. lars> hmm, so carriers wont change as far as fleet combat goes....sounds like the blobbing will continue except the carriers will be hugging a pos... lars> ok ok, million dollar question. lets say you are a carrier pilot or god forbid a mom pilot. you are bound to the ship(in case of the mothership) you can park it in capital ship arrays, but thats kinda crazy considering most alliances hose pos's building motherships if they find out. they would surely hose them if they knew one was parked in an array. so back to my point, if you are in a mom or carrier and that is your focus in the game, what are you suppose to do now when your alliance/corp is not involved in any engagements? are you suppose to continue your endeavours with increased chance of loss or are you to sit in stations/behind pos's and wait wasting your time till something happens? zulupark> uh lars> ok better yet, can we just start implementing giving battleships to players who cant afford them for epic fights since they cost as much as 5 fighters? Since we are on the track of forcing players to GIVE assets to other players, we might as well start GIVING other assets. Zulupark> well on that point you need to start being careful who you give your fighters too. you decided to get in a carrier, you need to use it alongside your corp/alliance with support in mind. its not a cheap vessel, if you can afford it, you can afford to delegate fighters. lars> what about the ever real issues of desync and this new delegation? we dont have time to build relationships with peeps in the alliance we dont know well yet and beg them to be careful with our fighters in the 30 minutes it takes to get these delegated in a major engagement. zulupark> ok, now you are just being silly. lars> so is this idea
not an actual convo, just what i think would happen.
|
Baun
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:09:00 -
[2194]
Two accounts over 4 years old canceled.
Anyone know any good new games with competent developers?
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Coolgamer
Minmatar Res Publica R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:10:00 -
[2195]
Originally by: Spike 68 Boredom during class = hilarity
THE ADVENTURES OF NERFGUN!
^^
SAVE carrier and Moms |
Thargor II
Amarr Real Nice And Laidback Corporation Interstellar Starbase Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:10:00 -
[2196]
Zulu and dev team let me address what I have seen here so far so that you can understand why the entire gaming community which you serve is so outraged.
1) Everyone currently feels that carriers/moms are perfectly fine in the field of battle currently in 0.0 under fleet conditions. 2) The only problem that relates to carriers/moms that the community sees is the massive lag that a fighter blob creates. 3) You are in fact not concerned with this and are not even mentioning what your true concerns are and what the motivation behind these changes is.
From the dev teams comments what I can extrapolate is a concern that: 1) Fleets in the not to distant future will contain a disproportionate amount of carriers and moms to support fleet. 2) Carriers and Moms will be the standard fleet ships and will push all new players in the game out of the fleet combat arena for at least 1.5 years of training. 3) The server side hardware requirements for having 300v300 carrier fights just doesn't bare mentioning cause there is no way this would work effectively.
Here is my response to what I believe is entire idea you have created then I'll say what I think should be done towards what I believe your goals are. Carriers/Moms are fine they don't need fixed. The only reason more and more of them are deployed on the battlefield is because of the stupid format of POS warfare and how you have to grind an opposing system to dust. What you are proposing fixing is a symptom not the base cause. This will always create animosity in your player base.
The problem you should solve is why are more people using carriers/moms and not flying a more diverse fleet. It is not an easy problem to solve but just making carriers completely unenjoyable to fly is not a good way to solve it. The answer I come up with is that war in 0.0 means an all out slug fest and the side with the most pilots, dps and least lag wins. So, the way to solve this is either to get rid of lag and then revisit the issue if it is still an issue or fix warfare in 0.0. The fact it can take a week from the initial invasion into a system until the POSs are destroyed means that any truly important system is going to be a lag fest for some time.
What you need to do is make it so a smaller fleet can deal with invading a territory in similar proportion to a larger one. Here is what I think would work, this is just an off the cuff idea, take and create a module for the black ops ships that allow you to hack a POS and pull it out of sovereignty counting until it is redeployed. Of course you would have to allow the POS owner to combat this by flying to his/her POS and using some counter measure that offlined the hacker's ability for a 24 hour period. Maybe making the hacking skill take 1 hour and be a really difficult skill to train. This would reduce the need to field only conventional fleets and pilots wouldn't all see carriers as the end game fleet ship.
Or you could just change what a fighter does. Maybe allow only 5 attack fighters out at one time but create, webbing, scramming, ecm, eccm fighters etc and allow the same amount of fighters there are currently but only allow moms/Carriers to have 5 damage dealing fighters under direct control at one time. While still being able to delegate their current maximum amount of fighters the only way they could get their full damage fire power on the field would be to assign fighters. If they didn't assign fighters they would have less dps but more combat utility.
|
Icome4u
Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:10:00 -
[2197]
Just cancel them now. This will teach them not to treat us like crap. If they don't implement this then just resubscribe you won't lose any money.
|
Idara
Caldari Contraband Inc. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:11:00 -
[2198]
Originally by: Baun Two accounts over 4 years old canceled.
Anyone know any good new games with competent developers?
I'll probably check out WOW again.
Or just buy that Xbox 360 for some Forza 2 action. ---
in EVE - Idara |
Draconus Lofwyr
Eternal Guardians Corp. The Covenant Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:12:00 -
[2199]
Edited by: Draconus Lofwyr on 23/10/2007 18:12:55 As a primary drone pilot, I am working on carrier myself. I do not like the proposed solution as it seems to negate the entire reason for carriers. to carry and field fighters.
I can see how lag from too many issues can be a factor, and as that is driving more people to field Carriers to reduce lag, this is inflating the carrier population. The flip side is the ones that are benefiting from the lag are complaining about the UberPwnge of the carriers.
Nerfing the carriers in this fashion is not the answer. Some alternate methods of bringing some sanity to the battlefield ( an oxymoron? ) is needed. I have a proposal that brings "Fleet Command" into a more direct role
Add some metric to the different Fleet levels for ship sizes. As well as some way of limiting the command structure and building out based on leadership.
A leadership skill for adding command points down the chain. A squad commander with enough command points can field a tiered structure of ships
ships have a fleet cost frigs and fighters = 1 point Destroyers = 2 points cruisers = 3 points Battlecruisers = 4 points Battleships = 5 points Dreads = 10 points Carriers = 15 points Motherships = 20 points Titans = 25 points T2 ships add 2 extra point ( t2 cruiser = 5 points )
Fleet tactical officer skill ( each lvl of skill adds 15 points to the commanders squad command pool)
To keep supercapitals and capitals in a support role without nerfing their damage, modify the wing and fleet command levels to include more than one member as capitals should not really be in squads (technically wings either) but allow one or 2 capitals (not super caps) in squads if the squad commander has the skill to lead them. The wing commander should be allowed to lead capitals and supercapitals with the addition of the following
Capital fleet tactical officer (each lvl of skill adds 25 points to the fleet and wing command pool)
This will add the Mothership the ability to assign fighters to a squad as a reinforcing role if the commander has the skills to lead them.
This isn't a complete solution and probably needs some other tweaks but this is how i perceived the fleet command interface should work. it should be an enabling as well as a limiting factor. as such it can also have a reduction in pool points based on 0.0, low sec or empire. you should not be able to field a fleet of BS's without getting the attention of the controlling faction and their displeasure at your show of force (adjusted by the commanders standing)
This could also be used to limit gate ganking to a certain degree as well, gangs and fleets can not directly engage lone ships. If you wish you engage a lone ship, all ships that wish to engage must not be in a gang or fleet. ( this could be abused, but as gate ganking is already being abused, its a fair trade to allow some level of survivability to the lone traveler )
These are just my 2mil isk (adjusted for inflation)
I could be entirely off base and i have applied the thermal protection to my pod for flame protection, but since this was a request for ideas, i have put in my input.
DL Freedom for the few, by the podding of the many!
|
Icome4u
Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:12:00 -
[2200]
Your account is set to expire on 29. October 2007 Your account is set to expire on 27. October 2007 Your account is set to expire on 29. October 2007
|
|
Baun
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:12:00 -
[2201]
Originally by: Idara
Originally by: Baun Two accounts over 4 years old canceled.
Anyone know any good new games with competent developers?
I'll probably check out WOW again.
Or just buy that Xbox 360 for some Forza 2 action.
How is the cooperative online Halo 3 on Legendary?
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:14:00 -
[2202]
Originally by: Baun Anyone know any good new games with competent developers?
Dunno, but wiki has a decent list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_MMORPGs
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
faltzswher
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:15:00 -
[2203]
Edited by: faltzswher on 23/10/2007 18:16:36 Ok ccp want carirer to be more surport - class bonus 50% to assigned figther damage but still let hem use all 15. that way asssigning them still has huge boost and wait if carrier is caugth at gate it actual has more dps than a domi.
[smart idea make me a dev pls]
|
Il Reverendo
Minmatar Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:15:00 -
[2204]
Design Cycle:
Just an idea -> Torrent of hate -> Just an idea that actually we've already developed and is now implemented on SiSi -> More hate -> In patch notes maybe with a small change to make it 'palatable' -> much crying and cancellation -> implementation -> epic fail.
Considering I'm pretty sure your design cycle for a new idea is more than 2 days, I like how you presented this as just an idea, when it was poised to be released from the internal development server and unleashed on sisi (which for 99% of previous changes to appear on sisi has meant they'll be implemented after all, maybe with one or two minor changes).
|
Druadan
Gallente Aristotle Enterprises Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:16:00 -
[2205]
Edited by: Druadan on 23/10/2007 18:16:41 What the **** is this ****?
CCP you are a bunch of lying scumbags. Take a long walk off a short pier. You are despicable fools of the highest calibre, and I am ashamed to say that I sold this game to so many of my friends, and gave you money out of my own pocket.
Accounts cancelled. Hellgate:London, here I come.
|
Zaentz
Darwin With Attitude oooh Shiny
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:17:00 -
[2206]
Subscription Status: Cancelled Will be suspended2007-11-03 Cancel Subscription Cancellation Expires: 2007-11-03 13:17:59
The other account is already cancelled.
|
Reptzo
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:19:00 -
[2207]
so, all you guys canceling, um, CAN I HAVE YOUR STUFF????
i mean, seriously, you wont be needing it
please?
|
faltzswher
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:20:00 -
[2208]
Originally by: faltzswher Edited by: faltzswher on 23/10/2007 18:16:36 Ok ccp want carirer to be more surport - class bonus 50% to assigned figther damage but still let hem use all 15. that way asssigning them still has huge boost and wait if carrier is caugth at gate it actual has more dps than a domi.
[smart idea make me a dev pls]
oh - assigned fighters have many bugs and seem more lag intensive to me but hey im sure ccp would u know played since beta *cough* 4 years and know this ( i know cairiers wernt on beta but lots of drones were.
|
Kwint Sommer
Incoherent Inc Otaku Invasion
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:20:00 -
[2209]
Originally by: Baun
Originally by: Idara
Originally by: Baun Two accounts over 4 years old canceled.
Anyone know any good new games with competent developers?
I'll probably check out WOW again.
Or just buy that Xbox 360 for some Forza 2 action.
How is the cooperative online Halo 3 on Legendary?
The whole doing co-op online thing works really, really well even with 4 players, although I've only done it with guys in my dorm. Do legendary with team scoring and some skulls turned on with 4 players, it's a blast. The campaign however was uninspired and I -as a huge Halo fanboy- had some serious issues with it. To paraphrase IGN, without the campaign Halo 3 is not a 10 out of 10, it is an 11 out of 10 and with it's a 9.5. Also the musical score wasn't up to par, it didn't even match Halo 1 if you ask me which was a real disappointment.
I'm going to hold off cancelling my accounts for at least a few hours, just giving the devs the benefit of the doubt one last time. That said, if they don't come up with a good reason why they lied to us about this being an "idea" that they were looking for feedback on when it was a fully developed bit of code I will be canceling my account and emailing a few video gaming sites with the details of this fiasco, after all who wouldn't want to cover the end of such an important MMO. Sig removed. Please keep sigs to 400x120 pixels and 24000 bytes in size or less. -Kaemonn |
Cannizza Junior
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:20:00 -
[2210]
I got this from another thread
Posted - 2007.10.23 15:55:00 - [119] --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally by: Mag's --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally by: CCP Sharkbait -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- posting in a player thread which i came up with the idea to derail it --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any chance you could post in zulu's blog and derail that? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally by: CCP Sharkbait
haha no. i love the changes thats happening.
i approve them in the face
Alright ppl, you can stop wasting your time posting here. It¦s implemented and aproved. What¦s left now? Nerf noob ships?
|
|
Druadan
Gallente Aristotle Enterprises Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:21:00 -
[2211]
Originally by: Reptzo so, all you guys canceling, um, CAN I HAVE YOUR STUFF????
i mean, seriously, you wont be needing it
please?
Get bent. My stuff will go to my corp, not pithy little 'Kings of Comedy' who have nothing constructive to post.
|
Menellaix
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:21:00 -
[2212]
Originally by: Zaentz Subscription Status: Cancelled Will be suspended2007-11-03 Cancel Subscription Cancellation Expires: 2007-11-03 13:17:59
The other account is already cancelled.
CCP: Hey, what do you guys think of this? Playbase: OMGWTF CACNELLINGING CCP: Huh?
|
Spike 68
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:21:00 -
[2213]
hey now, as bad as it is, name calling isn't going to fix anything.
however with t2 freighters/the ORE cap, and logistics ships/t2 bs... what would be the point of carriers after this proposed change?
Atm carriers are very useful for taking out POS modules making it half way safe for bs to have a work at the POS. And even then fighters/heavy drones get raped by manned POS guns.
|
Max Teranous
Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:22:00 -
[2214]
What i really, really don't like about this is being outright lied to. In the dev blog, this idea is touted as just an idea, being thrown out there for the community to discuss.
Quote: Well, we have an idea, and before you go ballistic remember that this is an idea and weære still working on it:
You go from that to completely coding the entire system in less than 2 working days, and putting it on the test server? I say bull****, this has obviously been on the cards for much longer, devoting programming time and effort into it. You don't do that for "just an idea".
Next time, have the good grace to not lie to us, and just tell us what is going to happen. Then we won't have to respond, wasting thousands of players time is a futile effort to put across our point of view.
Disappointed,
Max
--------------------
|
Cutie Chaser
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:22:00 -
[2215]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
...we are still monitoring this thread and listening to all ideas/complaints you have...
What most of us know that means:
"We are responding to this thread so we can continue to try to work some PR with our players, while at the same time we are implementing this change whether you like this or not"
*** Thats a Templar, the amarr fighter. Its a combat drone used by carriers. |
Robet Katrix
Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:23:00 -
[2216]
Originally by: Reptzo so, all you guys canceling, um, CAN I HAVE YOUR STUFF????
i mean, seriously, you wont be needing it
please?
ill be selling my caracters (which are now worth jack all) and giving the rest to corp if it goes through. ill send some arround to poor poeple too though ^^
|
Smutt
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:24:00 -
[2217]
Time for a thought, 1) there is MASSIVE opposition to this idea CCP you need to bin your current plan for fighters NOW 2)Start a new customer voting forum and ask your customers what they think of new ideas you cook up
If you want to keep your customer base it's simple, explain in detail any issues or problems you have from your side of the arguament i.e. LAG etc and ask for suggestions, the majority of people who play eve have a good working knowledge of computer systems and data communication. Take on board the best solutions to the problem, and present these on the voting forum.
The votes can be cast by players signing into their respective accounts and using a vote feature in the same way that the secure GTC system was organised and given one vote per account on the best 3-5 solutions to a given problem. The votes are counted up by a given deadline e.g. 2-4 weeks and the solution to the problem is then implemented within an appropriate timeframe. This will give everyone who plays this game a right to have their opinion on how the game progresses, and gives a democratic outcome based on all of the relevant facts involved in the situation. In order to create awareness of issues that need deciding on an automated message can be sent to all players in game. This will allow time for a pool of knowledge to be created from your customer base on the issue and potential workarounds.
just food for thought....
Smutt.
|
Coolgamer
Minmatar Res Publica R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:25:00 -
[2218]
Originally by: Cannizza Junior I got this from another thread
Posted - 2007.10.23 15:55:00 - [119] --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally by: Mag's --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally by: CCP Sharkbait -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- posting in a player thread which i came up with the idea to derail it --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any chance you could post in zulu's blog and derail that? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally by: CCP Sharkbait
haha no. i love the changes thats happening.
i approve them in the face
Alright ppl, you can stop wasting your time posting here. It¦s implemented and aproved. What¦s left now? Nerf noob ships?
wtf
SAVE carrier and Moms |
faltzswher
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:26:00 -
[2219]
anyone else think ccp isnt actually reading this thread?
i ahve gd idaas maek me a dev \o/
|
Reptzo
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:32:00 -
[2220]
DON'T JUST TRASH YOUR STUFF, MAKE SURE YOU GIVE IT AWAY, TO YOUR CORP, TO THE POOR, OR TO ME
ACCEPTING DONATIONS FOR THE KEEP REPTZO PLAYING FUND!!
|
|
Ztrain
Evolution Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:32:00 -
[2221]
Originally by: Baun Two accounts over 4 years old canceled.
Anyone know any good new games with competent developers?
Yes in fact Infinity Online is progressing but probably still a year out. More of a twitch game though. Also there is Jumpgate Evolution (gotta love the name right?) that is currently accepting Emails for beta invites when they have a beta client released.
Z CCP (Producers of Slide Show Online) takin the fun out of EVE, one patch at a time. |
Malachon Draco
eXceed Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:32:00 -
[2222]
Originally by: Baun Just a general message to all carrier pilots and mothership pilots.
Start camping low sec agent hubs from now until your account runs out. Make all major agent hubs unusable.
If CCP is serious about doing this then we need to be serious about making them pay for it.
You might as well take ships to camp the newbie stations and Jita 4-4 with smartbombs :-)
I don't believe the change to be so bad, but if this many people are so deadset against it, CCP should look at other ways to achieve what they want.
Personally I think its possible to achieve similar results without harming what most people here seem to consider the 'core functionality' of carriers.
------------------------------------------------
|
breadcat
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:33:00 -
[2223]
whine whine whine.......seriously just lol.....make some constructive suggestions instead.
|
Robet Katrix
Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:34:00 -
[2224]
Originally by: breadcat whine whine whine.......seriously just lol.....make some constructive suggestions instead.
why? they put it on SiSi anyways
|
Krall Amarr
Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:34:00 -
[2225]
Originally by: Vily Zulupark you scumbag.
still listening my ******* ass.
three more accounts cancelled. and i hope you guys enjoy chatting with Visa because i fully intend to contest my last round of account renewals under a change in service.
/signed same for me and my 3 account
|
Elmicker
Black Sea Industries Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:35:00 -
[2226]
Originally by: breadcat make some constructive suggestions instead.
85 pages of constructive "OH JESUS **** NO" wasn't enough, you mean?
Aside from the fact the nerf is bull****, we've been outright LIED TO.
Utter barefaced LIES. You do not go from a drawing-board ballpark idea to a fully coded, working, implemented change to 2 entire ship classes in 2 sodding days.
|
breadcat
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:35:00 -
[2227]
Originally by: Robet Katrix
Originally by: breadcat whine whine whine.......seriously just lol.....make some constructive suggestions instead.
why? they put it on SiSi anyways
so it's not like they can't change it with the next patch.
|
Idara
Caldari Contraband Inc. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:35:00 -
[2228]
Originally by: breadcat whine whine whine.......seriously just lol.....make some constructive suggestions instead.
Why bother. There were countless "constructive" suggestions that were ignored and called biased by players who didn't feel like giving up their "win buttons".
And even after 85 pages of pure hate for the ideas, they've mysteriously found their way onto Sisi.
Constructive criticism and suggestions mean **** all to CCP apparently. ---
in EVE - Idara |
Anton March
United Space Republic
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:43:00 -
[2229]
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.
I've set my account to cancel already. *If* there's a dev blog saying that this change is definitely not going live, I'll reactivate. Honestly though, I'm not holding my breath.
Well, at least this ought to make my gf real real happy.
|
Baun
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:43:00 -
[2230]
Edited by: Baun on 23/10/2007 18:44:07
Originally by: CCP Abathur Ladies and Gentlemen, this has to do with 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.
Why would we ever jump to conclusions?
Might it be because you suggested the deletion of two ship classes from the game to combat a non-existant problem and have not substantively responded to 2,500 negative posts made in 2 days and then implimented bandwidth on SiSi to reflect these changes.
Fix it with the next SiSi DT or you will see another several thouand accounts canceled.
Edit: I am still not officially reactivating until you officially abandon this idea. I imagine everyone else will act the same way.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
|
Future Thing
Ninja Warriors of the Round Table
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:44:00 -
[2231]
What a load of *******s. Leave this alone its a terrible idea.
|
Krall Amarr
Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:44:00 -
[2232]
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.
Sorry maybe u not understand 90 page of NO!
we are not patient we say NO, to this fix, and place it on try is lack of RESPECT on your customers my dear developer.
|
Jiks
Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:44:00 -
[2233]
Dear CCP,
I've been here since 2004 and this the second thread I've posted in. After the T2O fiasco I cancelled all three accounts, was away 6 months or so then decided to give your organisation ONE LAST chance. And here it is I guess ...
These changes, now live on Sisi, in the face of united hostility from people usually on opposite sides of any discussion, are wrong, wrong, wrong.
They will not prevent a MS in low-sec SBing people, which frankly I don't see as a problem anyway TBH. They will not reduce lag in fleet battles. They will make unganged/CTD carriers/carriers losing wingmen/on and intermediate jump/etc defenceless when its quite simple to kill them anyway. We don't even know WHAT they are intended to solve as you have not said.
While no constructive comments have been made here by the Devs as we have seen you all seem to have plenty of time to post nonsense about this elsewhere.
From the Sisi implementation it becomes clear this was planned for a while as I doubt code could have been writen and implemented in two days, making any claimed consultation a farce.
All games have an endgame and for most of us carriers/MS are that ultimate goal. If you take our end game away, particulally in this bizare and underhanded manner you will find we end our relationship with you. Permanantly.
Jiks
|
Jin Entres
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:45:00 -
[2234]
I've given roughly 4 screenfuls of constructive criticism. If this change goes through as is, I will seriously consider cancelling my two accounts.
However, CCP deserves the chance to respond, so I will wait until it either goes live or is announced officially. I've been a customer for almost three years and CCP has continually impressed me and kept me satisfied with an outstanding, unique product. I hope they prove once again that my trust is not misplaced. They deserve that chance, but they also deserve the consequences if they betray it. ---
|
Raketefrau
Caldari Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:45:00 -
[2235]
Edited by: Raketefrau on 23/10/2007 18:45:48 Almost 90page threadnaught, no goons required. Nicely done, CCP.
Woohoo, 100isk Archon on Sisi, warp to Capital FFA area, and... Ummm...
Well, this is boring as hell. I can sport 5 drones in the freaking Battleship area.
Personally, I love how the devs are basically just flipping us all off. Not even just by ignoring us, but by "derailing" another thread, and then locking it before anyone could respond.
Gotta love the big "**** you" they're giving us all.
|
Franklloydwright
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:45:00 -
[2236]
This was the straw that broke the camels back. It just ****es me off that it took 80+ pages before we got a single response, even that was a wait and see. Well CCP, this is my response...
Subscription Status: Cancelled Will be suspended11/21/2007 Subscription Status: Cancelled Will be suspended11/21/2007
Time to look for a new game.
|
Cyan Nuevo
Dudes In Crazy Killing Ships
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:46:00 -
[2237]
I hope all of you threatening to cancel your accounts actually do. I am totally disgusted to even be associated with this "community" right now.
Grow up? --- Proud Amarr pilot.
|
ROFL PWN
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:46:00 -
[2238]
Edited by: ROFL PWN on 23/10/2007 18:47:31 Edited by: ROFL PWN on 23/10/2007 18:47:06
i love playing eve, its awsome!! It gives me something cool to do at uni when im not working.(other thatn getting very drunk) I have now trained for bloody ages for a carrier because i love the damage and the fact that i can scare people with launching all my fighters! I wouldnt cancel my account just because i dont like this ridiculous nerf, or because there are now going to be charges for boosters and tracking comps!! :S but if ccp seriously dont listen to their customers this much i will cancel all 3 of my accounts on principle.
regards and fly safe
Cheese monkey.
|
Icome4u
Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:47:00 -
[2239]
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.
Not good enough. All 3 cancelation still pending. Ball is in your court CCP, you have A LOT of angry customers.
|
Icome4u
Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:49:00 -
[2240]
Originally by: Cyan Nuevo I hope all of you threatening to cancel your accounts actually do. I am totally disgusted to even be associated with this "community" right now.
Grow up?
1/10 for trolling. Seen much better.
|
|
Idara
Caldari Contraband Inc. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:49:00 -
[2241]
Well, from a quick glance through the las 4 pages or so....
56 accounts cancelled. ---
in EVE - Idara |
Elmicker
Black Sea Industries Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:50:00 -
[2242]
Originally by: CCP Abathur ...and is not related to the delegation idea....
so it just happens to work exactly as described in the dev blog?
|
SirMolly
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:50:00 -
[2243]
Originally by: Icome4u
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.
Not good enough. All 3 cancelation still pending. Ball is in your court CCP, you have A LOT of angry customers.
And a lot of customers that are actually satisfied with the comming change. "Capital Ships Online" ftl.
|
Jehuty Vanricadia
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:50:00 -
[2244]
Edited by: Jehuty Vanricadia on 23/10/2007 18:50:12
Quote: to outline our concerns and plans for carriers.
Because 2,500 customers concerns dont matter its about the developers!
|
Aurelius Lyonis
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:50:00 -
[2245]
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.
With as much outrage that has been generated in this thread, it would have been wiser to set the drone and fighter bandwidth on carriers to correspond with their current live limitations.
I'm assuming of course that it's simply a field in a database somewhere, and not a magic number...
Either way - it doesn't look good, and at this point, people don't need more of a nudge than that.
-Au
|
Baun
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:51:00 -
[2246]
Originally by: Idara Well, from a quick glance through the las 4 pages or so....
56 accounts cancelled.
Thats $10,000 a year lost in a few minutes.
WTG CCP!
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Ms Tinker
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:51:00 -
[2247]
K, now seeing that ccp wants a change to capitals is ok by me. I've seen the big capital blob that BoB with allies can field and that's just crazy. With the fighter swarm pos modules and station services melt in seconds, they don't really serve any purpose at that point.
But I don't agree with the suggested solution as does noone. Carrier needs to have the drone (be it fighter, heavy, small, logistic, whatever drone) ability it has, but if you need to BALANCE do it some other way fcs!
And yes, 4 accounts here saying no to these changes. Find another way.
|
kaahooters
Killson Corp Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:53:00 -
[2248]
NICE ****IN WAY TO REDUCE LAG CCP, i mean what could be easier and more cost effective then loosing 5 - 8 thousnad accounts by ******* up the carrier and mothership class to make them usless.
YAY LESS LAG..... due to less ppl.... humm.. you se the problem DO YOU.
|
Koala Bare
eXceed Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:54:00 -
[2249]
Originally by: CCP Abathur be patient. Thank you.
Do you see this thread? How much patience do people have considered the skill was never seeded.
|
Xilimyth Derlin
OldBastardsPub SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:54:00 -
[2250]
Simple suggestion if I may CCP:
When Drone Ships were reduced to 5 drones, the Drone Interfacing Skill was adjusted to make up for this by boosting the damage of the drones so the DPS would at least be on par.
As a striving carrier pilot seeking to remain unbiased here, would it not be possible to change Advanced Drone Interfacing the same way if this goes through while retaining the delegation abilities?
How hard would it be to put in a tag on Advanced Drone Interfacing that goes "20% (or appropriate # %) bonus to fighter drone damage output?
It will reduce the solo-controlled number of drones in space, but keep the carrier at a decent level of damage.
Just a thought while I pick up where I left off. -------------------------------------------
Carrier & Mothership changes - Voice your opinion here! |
|
Druadan
Gallente Aristotle Enterprises Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:54:00 -
[2251]
Originally by: Cyan Nuevo I hope all of you threatening to cancel your accounts actually do. I am totally disgusted to even be associated with this "community" right now.
Grow up?
Pot. Kettle. Black. You've been posting **** all through this thread with no intention but to rile us up with your nonsense.
|
Law Enforcer
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:54:00 -
[2252]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
Originally by: Kerfira Edited by: Kerfira on 23/10/2007 16:07:29 Edited by: Kerfira on 23/10/2007 16:06:03
Originally by: CCP Zulupark We are still monitoring this thread and reading the ideas posts we agree with that come up in it. We will, as previously stated, keep you up to date on any kind of progress when we implement this.
Corrected this for you. Eris made that fact plain for all to see.....
"Cleverly" changing my post to make some point I'm not quite sure of what is will not change the fact that we are still monitoring this thread and listening to all ideas/complaints you have.
bullcrap. that's why after 86? pages of people screaming NO this garbage went to the test server. you really listen to us.
|
burning raven
omen. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:55:00 -
[2253]
hey i just had a thought, one good thing that would come with this change is i wouldnt have to pay to keep my account with just 3 cyno alts active! woop woop
|
1Of9
Gallente The Circle STYX.
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:55:00 -
[2254]
:(((((( it's on sisi already ffs!
CCP dont listen to his clients.
My favorite game ever .. lost to stupidity!
|
Molly Neuro
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:59:00 -
[2255]
Originally by: breadcat
Originally by: Haakelen
Originally by: breadcat
Originally by: Robet Katrix
Originally by: breadcat whine whine whine.......seriously just lol.....make some constructive suggestions instead.
why? they put it on SiSi anyways
so it's not like they can't change it with the next patch.
When was the last time something was fixed in this game?
look up some patchnotes...
Are you astroturfing or just randomly trolling?
Either way, look up the many constructive suggestions in this thread. Rubies amongst cowpats no doubt - but still there.....
|
Idara
Caldari Contraband Inc. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:59:00 -
[2256]
Someone FRAPs a Rorqual vs Carrier fight please. ---
in EVE - Idara |
Haakelen
Gallente United Forces Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:59:00 -
[2257]
Edited by: Haakelen on 23/10/2007 19:00:38
Originally by: Mersault > but keep the carrier at a decent level of damage.
I think the whole point is to dramatically reduce the damage a Carrier pilot can do without assigning Fighters. How far that reduction goes remains to be seen. Maybe we will be able to control large numbers of small drones, less med, less heavy. Less Fighters.
Reread the blog.
Originally by: CCP Zulupark Not only do we want to limit the amount of fighters you can launch, but also the amount of drones! Yes, we want to limit carriers and motherships just like other ships, i.e. they should only be able to field 5 regular drones at any given time.
The goal is apparently to make carriers suck so horribly nobody wants to fly them, and to lose their playerbase.
Originally by: SirMolly
Originally by: Tobias Sjodin Not since the t20-anger has the EVE community been so united over one topic, and seeing how CCP dealt with that one properly, we can all relax and trust CCP to do the right thing.
Wait a minute...
So, now the community consists of Carrier/MS pilots only ?
You don't seem to realize that if they'll do this to carriers they'll do it to any other ship type. Maybe eventually destroying one you actually like.
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:01:00 -
[2258]
Edited by: Kerfira on 23/10/2007 19:03:19 The accounts they'll loose on this will be some of the most active ones, belonging to a relatively small part of the overall player-base.
All in all, it'll mean they'll have to spend on average less money on servers per player, they'll not need to keep older players with new content, they'll not have to contend with older players who know better than they how the game works, some lag issues may solve themselves, and they think they'll have an easier time attracting new players.
It probably makes sense from a financial point of view, but I still see it as a totally ****ty way to treat those loyal customers who've provided their wages and pay for years....
Still hoping they'll come to their senses, but unfortunately I don't think so
PS: 4 accounts (not gone yet, but waiting....)
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Aleric Vikyz
Shadow Of The Light R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:01:00 -
[2259]
I'd like to add to my last post...
Subscription Status: Cancelled
And...
Subscription Status:Active Cancellation Pending (Boy, the billing servers must be working overtime)
|
Grainsalt
Free Corp
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:01:00 -
[2260]
Devs just don't listen do they?
We are thinking of changing something...
No..
It's on SISI..
What they actually meant was ... We are gonna pretend to listen but do it anyway. If it does go ahead, my alt accounts are to be cancelled (on GTCs atm). Thank you and goodnight. ---
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=554257
|
|
Coolgamer
Minmatar Res Publica R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:02:00 -
[2261]
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.
i'm usually cautious with annoucement :p i will reactivate accounts *possibly* after seeing that new dev blog
SAVE carrier and Moms |
Icome4u
Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:04:00 -
[2262]
Originally by: SirMolly
Originally by: Icome4u
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.
Not good enough. All 3 cancelation still pending. Ball is in your court CCP, you have A LOT of angry customers.
And a lot of customers that are actually satisfied with the comming change. "Capital Ships Online" ftl.
Well if they want the minority (someone stated it was 0.5% or 5% of the community that want this to happen) to be happy then good for you. CCP will lose a couple thousand players and probably end up like SWG (that would be dead fyi).
Also impersonating someone else is a violation of the EULA. Maybe you should look into that before you get your account ban.
|
can'you'see'me
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:05:00 -
[2263]
**** you, you ******* bunch of ******* morons why dont you **** off and pick flowers for blizzard you ******* carebears.
|
Angela Toren
Amarr Toren Shipyards
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:06:00 -
[2264]
Originally by: Aleric Vikyz I'd like to add to my last post...
Subscription Status: Cancelled
Dude...he said it was an idea. ________________
Originally by: CCP Prism
Personaly I wouldn't touch an 80 page disaster with a 10 foot pole..
|
Wil Smithx
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:06:00 -
[2265]
this seems like some dumbass office dare man, picture this:
dev1: hey i dare you to nerf carriers so they only have 5 drones dev2: omg lol, think how many people we would **** off... dev1: rofl go on, do it dev2: lol, ok :P hey everybody, wait till you hear this, we're going to be nerfing carriers and motherships so they only have 5 drones dev3: omg lol, bets on how many pages the thread is
|
Salia Deluri
Cirrius Technologies O X I D E
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:08:00 -
[2266]
5 accounts in limbo waiting on what you will do.
Code of Deluri Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I cannot accept, and the wisdom to hide the bodies of those people I had to kill today. |
OMEGA 8473
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:08:00 -
[2267]
Expires:01.12.2007 18:03:00
as I said earlier in this tread ... they are going to make Hello Kitty Online out of our beloved EVE :(
|
SirMolly
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:08:00 -
[2268]
Edited by: SirMolly on 23/10/2007 19:08:38
Originally by: Icome4u
Originally by: SirMolly
Originally by: Icome4u
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.
Not good enough. All 3 cancelation still pending. Ball is in your court CCP, you have A LOT of angry customers.
And a lot of customers that are actually satisfied with the comming change. "Capital Ships Online" ftl.
Well if they want the minority (someone stated it was 0.5% or 5% of the community that want this to happen) to be happy then good for you. CCP will lose a couple thousand players and probably end up like SWG (that would be dead fyi).
And where do you get those numbers from ?
|
Max Teranous
Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:08:00 -
[2269]
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.
Well i suggest that he chop chop's and gets it written and posted, because the way this is currently being handled is completely shocking.
Max
--------------------
|
Mr ZER0
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:08:00 -
[2270]
PUT IN SYSTEM WIDE BELTS!!!!!
|
|
Miriyana
Gallente Legions of Derek
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:09:00 -
[2271]
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.
If this change goes forward I wont renew sub either. - - - - - - Change just leads to more problems
Originally by: CCP Wrangler Oh please no, I've had enough with real world taxes, and dealing with the tax agency. No more taxes!!
|
Lowbridge
Caldari Empirius Enigmus Navy Dark Matter Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:09:00 -
[2272]
Why are you doing this to paying players that have spent the better part of 1 1/2 years training for this ship to totaly change how this ship is used in the game. Please think this through completely before you move forward with this change
|
Tulas Flint
Amarr Seraphin Technologies Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:12:00 -
[2273]
Originally by: SirMolly
Originally by: Tobias Sjodin Not since the t20-anger has the EVE community been so united over one topic, and seeing how CCP dealt with that one properly, we can all relax and trust CCP to do the right thing.
Wait a minute...
So, now the community consists of Carrier/MS pilots only ?
not only to carrier/moms also for our Titan pilots ... with the nerf the titans complete out of game coz carrier/moms cant protect themselve ... how they will protect a titan without firepower ?!
Cancellation Pending Expires: 16. November 2007
|
Vily
Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:12:00 -
[2274]
Edited by: Vily on 23/10/2007 19:13:36 the really sad thing is how quickly it will kill EVE.
people dont seem to realize that these aren't your average customers who will be cancelling their subscriptions.
For anyone schooled in business that understands the 80/20 principle. ( that 80% of your business comes from 20% of your customers) this is that 20% and they are telling you to stop now.
many many alliances will dissapear, directors, CEO's, trainers etc. will dissappear because their long term interest in this game is gone.
it will be Star wars Galaxies all over again. -
|
ElvenLord
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:12:00 -
[2275]
Edited by: ElvenLord on 23/10/2007 19:13:19
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.
You want to say that you decided that carriers/MS (being the ships that deploy bigger number of drones/fighters) have the same bandwidth as a BS?????? And now we also have marauders that will be impossible to kill with a 3 times bigger ship?? So now we are making carriers/MS in just useless junk floating in space, that can sometimes be used as haulers, Why do we need t1/t2 freighters and rorquals????
Can you just delete carriers/MS and drones from the data base in any way, return us (all players) our billions of ISK and millions of SP and get over it.
pls explain how did you get this brilliant idea that BS and capital ships (in this case a drone carrier) should have the same bandwidth?
It seems to me that you are deliberately trying to reduce lag by reducing number of players. You have certainly convinced me.
That will be 9 acc less for you and a nice lawsuit. Tnx again.
|
Law Enforcer
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:14:00 -
[2276]
Originally by: Lowbridge Why are you doing this to paying players that have spent the better part of 1 1/2 years training for this ship to totaly change how this ship is used in the game. Please think this through completely before you move forward with this change
because a noob should be able to kill you with all his noob friends and when a group of noobies can't kill you then said ship you're flying must be unbalanced and in need of a nerf.
|
IceForce
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:14:00 -
[2277]
if this gows live then i'm going to finde a nother game this is totaly out of line i'm flying a carrier just to see all of thow's drons going and popoing the target having 5 drons is like flying a BS well ... still if the carrier get nerf 3 accounts will be canceld
|
Anton March
United Space Republic
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:15:00 -
[2278]
Originally by: ElvenLord
Can you just delete carriers/MS and drones from the data base in any way, return us (all players) our billions of ISK and millions of SP and get over it.
I don't want my SP and ISK back, I want my $150 back for the past 10 months that I've been training nothing but carrier related skills.
|
Vily
Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:15:00 -
[2279]
Originally by: Law Enforcer
Originally by: Lowbridge Why are you doing this to paying players that have spent the better part of 1 1/2 years training for this ship to totaly change how this ship is used in the game. Please think this through completely before you move forward with this change
because a noob should be able to kill you with all his noob friends and when a group of noobies can't kill you then said ship you're flying must be unbalanced and in need of a nerf.
the truly sad thing is 10 t1 cruisers can easily kill a carrier. AS IT STANDS CURRENTLY -
|
Cadela Fria
Amarr Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:16:00 -
[2280]
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.
Good Sir, I mean no disrespect. In fact, I mean what I am about to say, in the nicest way possible:
Your bandwidth change just happens to knock both Carriers AND Motherships down to using 5 fighters at a time, even after you fit 5 drone control units. Now the blog posted by mr. Zulupark states the following:
Originally by: Zulupark
We plan on changing the way fighters work, and have it so that you can still launch all the fighters you want (within limits of your ship/skills) but you can only directly control 5 of them at a time. That means that a carrier/mothership can launch 5 fighters, assign them to a gang mate, launch 5 more, assign them to another gang mate etc. etc.
This means you will NOT be able to launch 20 fighters from a mothership and send them all to incinerate a battleship in .2 seconds. It does however mean that you can assign 5 fighters to each of your lil‘ friends in the fleet and send them forth to be the messengers of your burning fury.
Remember, we‘re not messing with the final total amount of fighters you can launch and delegate, just the amount you can control and delegate at a time. You can of course also launch 5 fighters and make them attack a target of your own choice, if it pleases you.
Now you tell me it's pure coincidental that right now, with the bandwidth, Carriers and Motherships are completely and utterly broken on SiSi and only able to use 5 fighters. Somehow though, even mr. Zulupark's blog mentions this deal with 5 fighters max and what not, like it's a seperate thing.
Seperate? Ah but I doubt it..because HERE IT IS! SiSi, in all it's glory and splendour, portraying EXACTLY what mr. Zuluspark spoke of.
HOWEVER! In your infinite wisdom, along comes this idea, which would at this stage of the broken carriers and motherships, BOOST them, as they would yet again be able launch their fighters, as they'd delegate, launch, delegate, launch etc.
A kind of, how shall I say..relief, and salvation to the afforementioned issue. Your "idea" quite frankly boosts the carrier and mothership, taking the current bandwidth "feature" on SiSi into consideration. Clever move. Now you tell me this is pure coincidence...
No, you know what ? I would like to request a formal, or informal if you so wish, response as to how you, or any other CCP developer involved in this case, what they think this looks like..Take a good look at it. I will not become a conspiracy theorist, however I will present this to you, and I will let you decide for yourself CCP, and players included aswell.
Goodday *tips hat*
|
|
Kristo Tomar
IVC Consortium INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:19:00 -
[2281]
Well it seems that the new Carrier Nerfs are official and approved. I want all the ISK back that I spent on Carrier Skills and the Skill Points I wasted training all my toons to fly them. Whats the use flying a 2 billion ISK ship if it cant even defend itself against a 100 Million ISK Battleship.
CCP I am serious I want all the ISK and Skill time back that I wasted on ALL my toons that I wasted my time on.
|
Law Enforcer
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:19:00 -
[2282]
I'm so glad I never trained carriers.
|
ZaKma
Seraphin Technologies Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:19:00 -
[2283]
[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.
From Sisi local. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
|
Baun
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:19:00 -
[2284]
Originally by: CCP Abathur
That is it.
Clarify what this means.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
john roe
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:20:00 -
[2285]
hehe, a huge NO! spread over on 90 pages and ccp still laughs at us, giving us a finger... well, so be it.
personaly i've stopped enjoying this game a long time ago due to lag, bugs, unreal economy, etc. the reason for me to play was that i'm actualy good at what i do (both capital and regular fleet tasks) and always curious of what's comming up next. well, now i see what's comming and i dont like it at all. let's say that if i wont be satisfied flying my Caps after changes you propose i'll take a break from eve.
call me back when you make up your mind and make this software a game actualy. a playable game, where ppl have fun.
ps. i miss the old times :/
adieu
|
Dionisius
Gallente Critical Analysis Te-Ka
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:20:00 -
[2286]
Edited by: Dionisius on 23/10/2007 19:20:12 So lets see what CCP is wining here,
-1 anouncement of a poor, very poor ideia. -89 pages of almost pure hatred. -2500 posts of people giving viable alternatives and asking the original ideia not to go ahead.
And finally, an unkown number of people, with a good bunch of the older and most active players actually threatening to cancel or actually cancelling their accounts.
Your answers CCP were,
-Late. -Not satisfactory. -A complete insult to your playerbase.
This is like the big picture in Iceland that even a blind man would see from Australia and say...
" HOLY SH*T! NOW WTF WHERE THEY THINKIN!? "
A.K.A. - A very bad ideia. _____________________________________
|
Koala Bare
eXceed Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:20:00 -
[2287]
Originally by: ZaKma [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.
From Sisi local. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
Please tell me that comment is a joke ...
|
burning raven
omen. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:20:00 -
[2288]
what would be a nice touch would be some feedback on the issue, regarding if they are going to tottaly butt**** carriers/motherships or not? that would be nice.
|
Idara
Caldari Contraband Inc. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:20:00 -
[2289]
That response means absolutely nothing.
It's more vagueness. ---
in EVE - Idara |
Baun
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:20:00 -
[2290]
Originally by: ZaKma [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.
Interesting.
I think my moros does like 2x the damage of my thanatos now to BSs.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
|
SamuraiJack
Caldari Celestial Horizon Corp. Valainaloce
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:21:00 -
[2291]
If you bring this skill change in i'd like my skillpoints refunding so i can spend them in more appropriate skills thank you.
This isnt a light request. I spent almost a year training and funding my carrier. Thats not inconsiderate. Lets have a little more thought and less "nerf the **** outta it".
SJ. CLS CEO, Valainloce Executor and Standings Director =-
|
Haakelen
Gallente United Forces Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:21:00 -
[2292]
Edited by: Haakelen on 23/10/2007 19:22:59
Originally by: CCP Abathur
Originally by: Butter Dog
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.
Then may I politely suggest you increase the bandwidth of carriers. Quickly.
Its a very, very unfortunate co-incidence.
That is it.
Bear in mind that the test server is just that - a test server. We have a lot of things that we are testing internally for Trinity that get updated to the test server periodically. The delegation idea is just one of them.
I also want to reassure you all that while our replies have been few, there has been a lot of internal discussion about the subject matter of this thread and your responses to it. I'd like to thank everyone here who has taken the time to give constructive criticism and post your ideas.
The sigs are a nice touch as well.
This is significantly better. Thank you immensely for not just scoffing at us and completely ignoring our concerns as Eris did in a previous response.
But if this second devblog is just a more eloquent way of blowing your carrier nerf smoke up our ass, we're going to be MORE angry at you for it.
And unless you want still more ill will, you had also better give us a definitive answer as to whether or not you're going forward with it or not.
Don't forget who pays who here.
|
Mag's
MASS Ministry Of Amarrian Secret Service
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:22:00 -
[2293]
Originally by: CCP Abathur
That is it.
Bear in mind that the test server is just that - a test server. We have a lot of things that we are testing internally for Trinity that get updated to the test server periodically. The delegation idea is just one of them.
I also want to reassure you all that while our replies have been few, there has been a lot of internal discussion about the subject matter of this thread and your responses to it. I'd like to thank everyone here who has taken the time to give constructive criticism and post your ideas.
The sigs are a nice touch as well.
I thought this was the case, but I have to say, it was very bad timing.
Mag's
|
Coolgamer
Minmatar Res Publica R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:23:00 -
[2294]
Originally by: ZaKma [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.
From Sisi local. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
SAVE carrier and Moms |
Newbear
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:23:00 -
[2295]
Thumbs down! As a Carrierbear I think 1k~ dps is just fine considering the cost, time, and, risk of using a carrier.
Torp ravens, blaster megas can also pump out 1k dps so the problem shoudent be dps.
The problem with drones is lag. I suggest bundling drones into one flight so that instead of 5x or 20x independent entities, there would be just 1. This would probably solve the drone lag problem.
Click here for my High Security POS Service
|
SLack Mack
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:23:00 -
[2296]
Originally by: ZaKma [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.
From Sisi local. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
Does ccp actually play this game? Anyone who owns, knows some one with one, or even seen a dreadnought that is about the most rediculous statement ever
|
Torze
The Arrow Project Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:23:00 -
[2297]
Upon reading this over again..and again..and again. I think I can finally see a semi bit of logic (not well thought out logic mind you but, logic non the less). So, it seems that they want to allow the carriers to be able to launch the same total number of fighters. Limiting the fighters to a max number of 5 per assignment. Then if you choose, you can control 5 OR assign those 5 AND control 5 drones. It's not a horrible idea as the Carrier could be a damage add to several ships and still dish out some damage. However, to be workable, the regular drone damage bonus should be 100% per level (twice the domi's) Simply because, it is a capital ship and should be able to defend itself quite admirably. The other solution could be to quadruple it's defensive capabilty. That way it can at least hold it's own if ganked until support can arrive. Certainly it shouldn't be wiped out in 2 minutes while not being able to damage the enemy fleet (non capital fleet, a fleet of dreads should be able to pop it fast).
|
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:23:00 -
[2298]
Edited by: XoPhyte on 23/10/2007 19:24:13
Originally by: ZaKma [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.
Hes right, carriers AND dreads should be able to kill smaller ships. Buff the dread, allow it to lock more then two targets at the same time and have faster tracking while sieged!
|
ArmyOfMe
hirr Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:24:00 -
[2299]
Originally by: Vily
it will be Star wars Galaxies all over again.
ive actually started downloading it again
|
Inflexible
Rytiri Lva
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:25:00 -
[2300]
This will end in cancellation of AT LEAST my capship pilot's account Bad thing is that I trusted CCP too much and have 12 month subscription
|
|
Icome4u
Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:32:00 -
[2301]
As far as i know those things need to be done:
#1 Not go through with this idea. #2 Public apology from CCP for proposing this 'idea'. #3 Public apology from the Dev's that posted rude/disrespectful comments (one of them being CCP Eris) toward their customers. #4 Supercapitals shouldn't be allowed in low sec. #5 Put Rev III and Trinity II online.
|
Ranko
Antares Frontier The Fifth Race
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:32:00 -
[2302]
What totally amasses me is that CCP is a business, EVE is their only cash cow per say.
Businesses tend to listen to their customer base and use this as feedback to what to sell, and how to sell it.
CCPs customer base I think as a majority has said this 'nerf' is a bad one....
It seems that CCP does not care what its customer base thinks of this change and goes ahead with it anyway. Thats not really listening to your customers.
Seriously CCP, Your customers have spoken, surely as a business you should at least reply to your customers remarks and comment on them as such.
BTW... This nerf is a bad one btw, leave carriers and motherships the way they are... They have evolved from POS hugging ships to decent PvP support ships on the front line, but now they will be going back to POS hugging. ---
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 ^_^ |
Baloan
Caldari Polizeiruf Irjunen
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:33:00 -
[2303]
Edited by: Baloan on 23/10/2007 19:35:41 btw: we fought many wars WITHOUT the carriers - and it works. the nerf is to bind the carriers in a GROUP, not as a solo weapon. imho its a good nerf for ANOTHER tactical ways.
so stop whining about - and cancel ure accs...its like in a wow forum...
|
Drethon
Gallente Lutin Group
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:34:00 -
[2304]
I see the problem of nerfing carriers as leading to them no longer being defendable and now the 3B investment is worthless.
What if along with the nerf they add the ability for carriers to work as standoff ships. Give them extremely long locking ranges as well as extremely long rang webbers and possibly webbing fighters. This way they can attack at 100-200+km and the ships they are attacking will have to fight their way through the fighters to reach the carrier. The carrier cannot kill as easily but it is much harder to kill.
Needs work of course but is a thought.
"I may not believe in what you believe in but I will fight to the death to protect your right to believe." |
Ezzaron
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:34:00 -
[2305]
Originally by: Baloan lol, its quite funny to read...so many ppl whines....eve is more than carrier fights...but...u SEE..the dumb ppl, that whining about that nerf. they cancel there acc..roofl...
but...i think eve is nothing for there, if they cant kill SOLO any others.
and btw: we fought many wars WITHOUT the carriers - and it works. the berf is to bind the carriers in a GROUP, not as a solo weapon. imho its a good nerf for groupplaying and ANOTHER tactical ways.
so stop whining about - and cancel ure accs...its like in a wow forum...
1/10 troll post
|
Pallidum Treponema
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:34:00 -
[2306]
Originally by: CCP Abathur
Originally by: Butter Dog
Its a very, very unfortunate co-incidence.
That is it.
Bear in mind that the test server is just that - a test server. We have a lot of things that we are testing internally for Trinity that get updated to the test server periodically. The delegation idea is just one of them.
I also want to reassure you all that while our replies have been few, there has been a lot of internal discussion about the subject matter of this thread and your responses to it. I'd like to thank everyone here who has taken the time to give constructive criticism and post your ideas.
The sigs are a nice touch as well.
Thank you Abathur, a very nice response. This goes a long way to reduce the amount of anger I feel over this proposed change. However, in relative terms I am still very much upset. Your post is a very good one, but your PR department REALLY need to make a devblog or news post, RIGHT NOW, because a select few replies in this thread simply doesn't cut it.
I'm not talking about you pleasing me right now. I'm talking about the future of eve as a game. Right now, there are a large number of people out there that are furious about this proposed change. That this has even been implemented on SiSi, which many takes - quite rightly - as a prediction of how things will end up on TQ, may be a coincidence, but the timing was HORRIBLY poor.
Please realise that this NEEDS to be dealt with by a PR department RIGHT NOW or things will just escalate out of control. There are already people not only threatening to quit over this, but actively cancelling their accounts. I'm one of them. Many of these people are veterans of eve, who have played for two, three even four years or more. As a result, a disproportionally large number of those players hold high positions within their corporations or alliances. Some may be FCs, others may be directors, CEOs or even alliance leaders. Even a fraction of those people leaving at the same time WILL destabilize those alliances. This destabilization will cause even more players to leave, which then have a large chance of escalating even further.
This runs the risk of effectively KILLING several alliances in this game. This will in turn completely destabilize the political climate in eve that we have right now. That as well may cause people to leave. And the snowball just keeps on rolling.
CCP, you NEED to treat this as a PR disaster right now. It's not a game design idea anymore. What you have caused is yet another PR disaster! You absolutely need to deal with it as such, or you WILL end up losing a sizable chunk of your playerbase.
|
ArmyOfMe
hirr Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:35:00 -
[2307]
Originally by: Icome4u As far as i know those things need to be done:
#1 Not go through with this idea. #2 Public apology from CCP for proposing this 'idea'. #3 Public apology from the Dev's that posted rude/disrespectful comments (one of them being CCP Eris) toward their customers. #4 Supercapitals shouldn't be allowed in low sec. #5 Put Rev III and Trinity II online.
Ill agree with point 1, 3 and 5. On point number 4 i would say its better to disable supercaps from using any high slot modules in low sec. Smartbombs is what a mom uses in low sec most of the time, not fighters
|
Ztrain
Evolution Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:35:00 -
[2308]
Originally by: Baun
Originally by: Idara Well, from a quick glance through the las 4 pages or so....
56 accounts cancelled.
Thats $10,000 a year lost in a few minutes.
WTG CCP!
That's also just what are proactive here. When people started seeing this thread linked they were like wtf and just starting to realize what's being changed. More will cancel. And that's just as a threat at this time. It is a small representation of what will happen when it goes live.
The true damage to CCP will be when all the people that leave this game for others start spreading the word of how crappy a game company is. You always hear this company this or that. As far as I'm concerned CCP is worse then SoE at this point. When people start talking about the new being worked on White Wolf vampires game right off tha bat it will be that's CCP don't even bother. Look at how they handled EVE.
Z CCP (Producers of Slide Show Online) takin the fun out of EVE, one patch at a time. |
RazorCRO
Caldari The Arrow Project Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:35:00 -
[2309]
Maybe....but just maaaaybe, this change is only becouse of implementing new drone system for all ships. Maybe they will get it back as it was...
Now...i really doubdt that CCP will read my post, and even if they do read it, i really doubdt, they will care about it, but i will write it down.
CCP....you were my heroes. I played alot of MMORPG games. Starting from Knight Online, trough many other free and not free MMORPG games up to EVE. In everey single one of them i had alot of good time untill Devs ruined it. In some, Devs were only bystanders, doing nothing, fixing nothing and gathering money. In others they were plain game for themselfs...didint care about customers and ppl that were acctualy paying em. Becouse of that i stopped plain MMO's and started having fun with FPS like CS and Americas Army. When friend of mine told me about EvE i was somewhat suspicious. I told myself: "It cant be as good as he's tellin me". But i gave it a try. I was charmed by game after onyl few days of plain. As time passed, and patch after pathc were coing out, game was getting betetr and better. Devs were in contact with they customers. Devs were working hard to make this great game even greater. I was talking about game wherever i went.
And than....this...kick in a nuts....punch in a face...from those same devs. I cant even bolieve that one of you were even remotely thinking that change like this would impruve ANYTHING in this game.
I'm currently paing for 2 accounts. If this comes trough to live server, i'm canceling em. No reason for me to play anymore becouse i wont make myself to play "new Knight Online". No thanks....i burned my fingers once...shame on tham...if i do it twice...shame on me.
And to clear something out. I am not Carrier pilot. I'm light years away from it. But this kind of changes (not only ingame...but your way of handleing 80+ thread of no no's), kills everything i was dreadming about and kill allmost everything i was looking for in eve.
And i'm sorry for bad English...i hope, whoever reads it, will understand what i was trin to say.
|
Icome4u
Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:35:00 -
[2310]
Originally by: Baloan Edited by: Baloan on 23/10/2007 19:33:36 lol, its quite funny to read...so many ppl whines....eve is more than carrier fights...but...u SEE..the dumb ppl, that whining about that nerf. they cancel there acc..roofl...
but...i think eve is nothing for there, if they cant kill SOLO any others.
and btw: we fought many wars WITHOUT the carriers - and it works. the nerf is to bind the carriers in a GROUP, not as a solo weapon. imho its a good nerf for groupplaying and ANOTHER tactical ways.
so stop whining about - and cancel ure accs...its like in a wow forum...
I do what i want with my ships. You have no rights, same with CCP, to FORCE me what to do.
|
|
Looney Spooney
Amarr omen. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:36:00 -
[2311]
Edited by: Looney Spooney on 23/10/2007 19:35:49
Originally by: Torshin
Originally by: Looney Spooney
Originally by: ZaKma [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.
From Sisi local. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
lol. Does CCP even play this game? Because I seem to remeber dreads being made for attacking POSes?
Guys we been doing it wrong! Your draeds are ment to shoot support.
but wait if carriers/ms arent made for killing support and dreads are, how should i use my MS?
All you devs crying about us crying about carriers compare the ability of a dread to kill a POS to that of a carriers ability to kill a POS.
Hey dont worry we can use 5 sentry drones now!
|
Skilo
Ordem dos Templarios Pax Atlantis
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:36:00 -
[2312]
Can i just get back all my skills points in drones, fighters and capital ships to be replaced in skills for more cool stuff like ice mining?
I could be training command ships, recon ships, etc ......
Stop it!!!!!!!!!!
|
Kartala
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:37:00 -
[2313]
Edited by: Kartala on 23/10/2007 19:36:58
Quote: I do what i want with my ships. You have no rights, same with CCP, to FORCE me what to do.
u can do, what ccp is want to do..;)
|
Pallidum Treponema
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:37:00 -
[2314]
Originally by: ZaKma [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.
As I said, PR department RIGHT NOW! Your staff is acting totally to the contrary of your company's good right now!
|
ARISINI
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:37:00 -
[2315]
Account cancelled!
Your account is set NOT to automatically renew at the end of the current cycle |
Victous
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:39:00 -
[2316]
You have got to be kidding me, it takes forever to train up the proper skills to use a carrier I have spent the better part of the last year doing just that and still am only average as a carrier pilot, this has got to be a joke, why the hell would someone spend all their time and effort to get into one of these ships if they cannot even reap the benifits of killing smaller ships like BS's easily? I mean thats how it should be right, my ships bigger badder and thus I can kill you quicker, if you dont like it invest the time and effort I have and come at me with a dread etc etc... You Dev's need to stop messing with ships that everyone likes and uses and concentrate on something more productive like cranking out a new capital class that is anti carrier and thus makes the game more interesting and gives players more options. So what if I can kill a BS quicker in my 1 billion isk ship, I mean at ten times the cost I dont see the problem with that, I would expect a titan to be able to kick my carrier's ass or are we gonna try to make every ship in this game level with battleships? LOL
|
Turin
Caldari Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:40:00 -
[2317]
Originally by: elohllird
Originally by: Vandalias
Originally by: UPS Truck How is a solid combat ship that doesn't appear overpowered to most people a 'flavor of the month'?
Ask everyone and their mom who created alts specifically to train for it. I'm sure they had some reason. You don't see everyone training for carriers for no reason.
post with your main coward
Just ignore this chode, he is nothing but a troll, who is out to bait as many people as he can.
_________________________________
|
Icome4u
Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:41:00 -
[2318]
Originally by: Kartala Edited by: Kartala on 23/10/2007 19:36:58
Quote: I do what i want with my ships. You have no rights, same with CCP, to FORCE me what to do.
u can do, what ccp is want to do..;)
I can if i want to. But i don't want to be FORCE to do it. Especialy when their idea sucks (logistic modules aren't good enough to put a carrier/MS at risk).
|
Mistress Suffering
Einherjar Rising
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:41:00 -
[2319]
What in the world is CCP smoking?
Carriers aren't overpowered currently. Why would they feel like they needed nerfing?
You want to nerf something? Nerf fighter delegation. Don't make it mandatory. If anything is a problem, its the ability to use fighters while hiding at .0001 meters from being back inside a hugely fortified POS shield.
These sorts of changes just **** me off because they demonstrate a lack of actually flying the ship in question.
|
SirMolly
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:43:00 -
[2320]
Don't get soft CCP, otherwise there will be endless amount of whineage every nerf. You know what's best for your game.
|
|
Gralatus
Viper Squad Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:43:00 -
[2321]
Bad Idea, as stated by many for lots of reasons.
Mostly because I paid for the time needed to train the carrier to a respectable level based upon the expectation that it was a valueable, useful ship. To nerf it into some sort of Big Dominix borders on stupidity at a level previously unseen from ccp and basically is a slap in the face.
If lag is the issue, boost fighters and reduce the numbers similiar to drones.
If solo-pwnmobiles is the issue, make them more expensive so losing them hurts more.
If capital blobs are the issue then nerf remote repping.
Triage mode already make a carrier into nothing but a big fat target that can't fight back. This change makes it nothing more then a big expensive logistics ship 100% of the time.
I didn't train months to fly a Big badger/basilisk ship.
Maybe this dev needs to go back to quality assurance, cause this idea sucks.
g
|
Icome4u
Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:44:00 -
[2322]
Originally by: SirMolly Don't get soft CCP, otherwise there will be endless amount of whineage every nerf. You know what's best for your game.
Apparently they don't. Especially when you have people that have been playing the game from day 1 canceling their accounts. But hey you wouldn't know anything about that noob.
|
Ztrain
Evolution Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:45:00 -
[2323]
Originally by: CCP Abathur I also want to reassure you all that while our replies have been few, there has been a lot of internal discussion about the subject matter of this thread and your responses to it.
Like for example where your going to send your resumes and what companies would be willing to still consider any employee's with white wolf and CCP on the names? Heh
Z CCP (Producers of Slide Show Online) takin the fun out of EVE, one patch at a time. |
Xilimyth Derlin
OldBastardsPub SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:47:00 -
[2324]
Edited by: Xilimyth Derlin on 23/10/2007 19:51:03
Originally by: SirMolly Don't get soft CCP, otherwise there will be endless amount of whineage every nerf. You know what's best for your game.
Going soft on an adjustment is one thing... if it was a one month skill, that'd be ONE issue. This is DRASTICALLY changing the role of a ship that takes a year of dedicated training to get into. VASTLY different situation here.
EDIT: AND has been out for a year. If this was after a month of change... I can almost guarantee the reaction would've been different. -------------------------------------------
Carrier & Mothership changes - Voice your opinion here! |
Dionisius
Gallente Critical Analysis Te-Ka
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:49:00 -
[2325]
Originally by: SirMolly Don't get soft CCP, otherwise there will be endless amount of whineage every nerf. You know what's best for your game.
So for what company do you work for?Blizzard?Sonny?EA?Trolls'r Us? _____________________________________
|
Olli
Seraphin Technologies Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:52:00 -
[2326]
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.
Nobody trust u. 4 Accounts down for u CCP
|
Veng3ance
Prophets Of a Damned Universe
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:52:00 -
[2327]
I thought this was an "idea"
I had no idea ideas could be implemented onto the test server within 48 hours. Thats amazing!
You guys already decided this awhile back. Shoulda just suprised us, you wasted a full month of subscription money for a couple thousand accounts.
|
Cassius Hawkeye
Minmatar Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:56:00 -
[2328]
Awaiting further clarification on the issue before deciding what to do. I do not want to end up leaving the game i love, but if there is little point in reaching what i aim for then so be it.
Carriers are fine as they are - they are NOT solomobiles. They ARE vulnerable. They ARE effective support ships. - please don't ruin these fine ships.
They are the combat & logistics backbone of EVERY 0.0 alliance/corp, the pride of many players collection of ships and the aspiration of 1000's of newer players.
Please look into alternative methods to solve drone lag. Please find a way to prevent low sec mom camping.
CCP please sort this out. -----------------------------------------
|
Necronomicon
Caldari KIA Corp KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:56:00 -
[2329]
Originally by: ZaKma [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.
Our carriers dont have a module that gives our drones a stupid amount of extra damage, or one that that makes our ships able to ultra tank...oh wait...we do, but it cuts our offensive capability to ZERO.
Dreads and carriers can be compared about as much as Cruise Launchers and Mining Lasers, yeah, they both use a high slot, whoopdy doo, that is where the similarities end.
You sir obviously have little knowledge of the game, and you are insulting those of us who do. I suggest you refrain from further irritating the commuity with your throwaway 'whining' comments when addressing players who have been in this game longer than you have probably been in CCP.
Carlsberg dont make Eve Pilots, but if they did, i wouldnt be one of them.
|
JonVe
Gallente FireTech Pure.
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:58:00 -
[2330]
Yeah, I used to be Jedi in SWG prior to the NGE.
You guys have no ****ing idea how angry I am now at this happening here.
|
|
Icome4u
Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 19:59:00 -
[2331]
Originally by: Ztrain
Originally by: Icome4u
Originally by: SirMolly Don't get soft CCP, otherwise there will be endless amount of whineage every nerf. You know what's best for your game.
Apparently they don't. Especially when you have people that have been playing the game from day 1 canceling their accounts. But hey you wouldn't know anything about that noob.
No he's 100% correct. They need to fix lag. But they don't have the programming skills to fix their software so they only way they can reduce lag is by reducing the population.
Z
|
picchiatello
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 20:00:00 -
[2332]
Originally by: JonVe Yeah, I used to be Jedi in SWG prior to the NGE.
You guys have no ****ing idea how angry I am now at this happening here.
OMGGGG!!!
Server?
ME.. i Was Chimera.. in ehm JEdi Council corp ;)
|
Rajari
Amarr Crimson Star Empire
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 20:01:00 -
[2333]
I gotta say *NERF*
I've only just gotten my carrier and true, a lot of times it can be uber deadly. At the same time, it doesn't take too much to overcome it. An inty can keep out of range of fighters and such. It's all about tactical planning. The fact that some people have problems with this, doesn't mean you should nerf it for everyone else. If a carrier can't control more drones than, say, a battleship, or any other ships...then what's the real reason for having one? The Jump Drive? 'Fraid the new jump freighters will nerf that aspect of the benefit of the carriers as well. As someone else in this thread said, don't nerf the CAPITAL SHIPS (meaning, supposed to be uber and difficult) but instead, create newer ships and modules to combat the caps. For instance, maybe a jamming module that will interrupt control of a carrier's drone(s) so they just attack whatever, or cease attacking at all. Just a quick lil rant with a couple ideas before I head to work, lol. Had to let myself be heard here though...nerfing ships is never the answer. next you'll be nerfing HACs and such so noobships can take them out more easily....because people would rather complain about that than striving for a better ship. ---- CEO/Founder CRIMSON STAR EMPIRE CRIST Forums |
1Of9
Gallente The Circle STYX.
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 20:01:00 -
[2334]
I just came from sisi.
Im extremely sad to report, that a DEIMOS was TANKING my nyx with my ubber 5 drones .. I DIDNT KILL IT.. I DIDNT!!!!!!!!!
he LOL'ed on local ffs!!
A ship that costed me 50b isk could not kill a freaking Deimos!
CCP: trust me... I AM LEAVING!
|
lofty29
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 20:01:00 -
[2335]
Yknow. I've never been angry at a change CCP made. They nerfed NOS, one of my primary weapons. I saw the reasons, so I adapted and kept playing. Before that, they nerfed launching 15 drones from a droneboat, I saw the reasons and kept playing. Before that, they nerfed drone tracking. Again, I saw the reasons, and kept playing.
Now, they completely ruin the one thing I've been working towards for the last year, and there is absolutely NO POINT
If these changes hit TQ, you won't see another Lofty29 movie ---
Latest Video : FAT- Camp |
Xilimyth Derlin
OldBastardsPub SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 20:01:00 -
[2336]
Originally by: picchiatello
Originally by: JonVe Yeah, I used to be Jedi in SWG prior to the NGE.
You guys have no ****ing idea how angry I am now at this happening here.
OMGGGG!!!
Server?
ME.. i Was Chimera.. in ehm JEdi Council corp ;)
I think it was 'Sunrunner' for me. But yea... the joy of everyone getting to instantly go jedi ... meh. The 'Elder' Jedi title didnt' quite fix that given the time I put into those force quests :/
-------------------------------------------
Carrier & Mothership changes - Voice your opinion here! |
Dionisius
Gallente Critical Analysis Te-Ka
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 20:04:00 -
[2337]
Originally by: lofty29 Yknow. I've never been angry at a change CCP made. They nerfed NOS, one of my primary weapons. I saw the reasons, so I adapted and kept playing. Before that, they nerfed launching 15 drones from a droneboat, I saw the reasons and kept playing. Before that, they nerfed drone tracking. Again, I saw the reasons, and kept playing.
Now, they completely ruin the one thing I've been working towards for the last year, and there is absolutely NO POINT
If these changes hit TQ, you won't see another Lofty29 movie
Sh*t.. i liked to watch your movies alot. _____________________________________
|
Druadan
Gallente Aristotle Enterprises Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 20:04:00 -
[2338]
Originally by: lofty29 Yknow. I've never been angry at a change CCP made. They nerfed NOS, one of my primary weapons. I saw the reasons, so I adapted and kept playing. Before that, they nerfed launching 15 drones from a droneboat, I saw the reasons and kept playing. Before that, they nerfed drone tracking. Again, I saw the reasons, and kept playing.
Now, they completely ruin the one thing I've been working towards for the last year, and there is absolutely NO POINT
If these changes hit TQ, you won't see another Lofty29 movie
Look what you've done, CCP! You might as well divide by zero and have done with the universe.
|
Kristoffer
Amarr Blackguard Brigade Aftermath Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 20:05:00 -
[2339]
This has to be one of the worst ideas ever. Give me my spent training time back k thanks.
|
Extremely Sticky
Angry Dogs
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 20:05:00 -
[2340]
I consider BC's and Command ships to be a support ship thta gives you more firepower or armor. Not a carrier. Make a carrier the ultimate Command link ship then you can call it a support ****.
A carrier is an attacking ship for me. I don't want to assign all my fighters and have everyone else doing all the work. |
|
JonVe Kaar
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 20:05:00 -
[2341]
I was in Europe Farstar
The CU was bad enough but at least it still was a really great game.
But the NGE bastardized every single good thing about it and through it down the sewer.
I spent so long grinding and grinding in that damn village...
|
Necronomicon
Caldari KIA Corp KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 20:06:00 -
[2342]
Originally by: lofty29 Yknow. I've never been angry at a change CCP made. They nerfed NOS, one of my primary weapons. I saw the reasons, so I adapted and kept playing. Before that, they nerfed launching 15 drones from a droneboat, I saw the reasons and kept playing. Before that, they nerfed drone tracking. Again, I saw the reasons, and kept playing.
Now, they completely ruin the one thing I've been working towards for the last year, and there is absolutely NO POINT
If these changes hit TQ, you won't see another Lofty29 movie
There you have it CCP, you wanna nerf Lofty out of the game, FOR SHAME, FOOOOORRRR SSSHHHAAAAMMMEEEE!!!!
Carlsberg dont make Eve Pilots, but if they did, i wouldnt be one of them.
|
Veng3ance
Prophets Of a Damned Universe
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 20:07:00 -
[2343]
Originally by: lofty29 Yknow. I've never been angry at a change CCP made. They nerfed NOS, one of my primary weapons. I saw the reasons, so I adapted and kept playing. Before that, they nerfed launching 15 drones from a droneboat, I saw the reasons and kept playing. Before that, they nerfed drone tracking. Again, I saw the reasons, and kept playing.
Now, they completely ruin the one thing I've been working towards for the last year, and there is absolutely NO POINT
If these changes hit TQ, you won't see another Lofty29 movie
Look what you did!!!!!!!! NOOOOOOOOO
|
JonVe
Gallente FireTech Pure.
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 20:09:00 -
[2344]
Edited by: JonVe Kaar on 23/10/2007 20:05:50
Originally by: picchiatello
Originally by: JonVe Yeah, I used to be Jedi in SWG prior to the NGE.
You guys have no ****ing idea how angry I am now at this happening here.
OMGGGG!!!
Server?
ME.. i Was Chimera.. in ehm JEdi Council corp ;)
I was in Europe Farstar
The CU was bad enough but at least it still was a really great game.
But the NGE bastardized every single good thing about it and through it down the sewer.
I spent so long grinding and grinding in that damn village...
|
Reatu Krentor
Minmatar Void Spiders Fate Weavers
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 20:11:00 -
[2345]
I voted with my wallet.
|
Menellaix
Angel of War Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 20:11:00 -
[2346]
If they haven't figured it out yet, they never will. However, I think the useful criticism stopped about 50 pages ago.
|
Spare me
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 20:13:00 -
[2347]
Hey maybe a stupid suggestion... but instead of nerfing... why not ADD something to counter carriers. I think i saw the idea before but.. how about making more cap ships... You might scare off most of the carrier pilots this way and make capital ship blobbing useless. However you also lose a lot of costumers. So how about adding some new kind of cap ship somewhere between BS and Carrier/Dread... or just more kinds of capital ships, since now we are restricted to either carrier or dread. More different kinds of capitals will spread the pilots a bit more and not force them to fly 1 of 2 kinds of capitals.
|
Arnoud Langen
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 20:14:00 -
[2348]
sorry spare me was my alt
|
lofty29
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 20:14:00 -
[2349]
Originally by: Spare me Hey maybe a stupid suggestion... but instead of nerfing... why not ADD something to counter carriers. I think i saw the idea before but.. how about making more cap ships... You might scare off most of the carrier pilots this way and make capital ship blobbing useless. However you also lose a lot of costumers. So how about adding some new kind of cap ship somewhere between BS and Carrier/Dread... or just more kinds of capital ships, since now we are restricted to either carrier or dread. More different kinds of capitals will spread the pilots a bit more and not force them to fly 1 of 2 kinds of capitals.
Thing is, theres nothing to add. Every role is filled tbh. ---
Latest Video : FAT- Camp |
Arnoud Langen
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 20:17:00 -
[2350]
hmm im sure they can think of something... carriers that have better bonusses for remote repping is a start... Carriers that have more health... so kind of like WoW (ahhh I said the W word) you have a warrior... but it can do several things... but not all at the same time. So you could just splice the carrier up in several types of carriers.
|
|
wifi
Space Monkeys
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 20:18:00 -
[2351]
Edited by: wifi on 23/10/2007 20:18:34 ACTUALY its false what ccp claims here. its not just a limitation bye the uplink If it would be like this you would be able to launche up to 10 small drones from a carrier
BUT YOUR NOT so dont tell us thats not a intended nerf i can launche exactly 5 light drones from my carrier with carrier skill at 5
so what should we belive now ? 5X5mb uplinke != 125mb uplink.
I feel so cheated even your last posts are outright lies :(
|
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 20:18:00 -
[2352]
Originally by: Spare me Hey maybe a stupid suggestion... but instead of nerfing... why not ADD something to counter carriers. I think i saw the idea before but.. how about making more cap ships... You might scare off most of the carrier pilots this way and make capital ship blobbing useless. However you also lose a lot of costumers. So how about adding some new kind of cap ship somewhere between BS and Carrier/Dread... or just more kinds of capital ships, since now we are restricted to either carrier or dread. More different kinds of capitals will spread the pilots a bit more and not force them to fly 1 of 2 kinds of capitals.
It's already been proven hundreds of times (just look at the killboards) that carriers are VERY easily killed. So those ships exist today, they are called battleships or commandships or hacs.
|
Ztrain
Evolution Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 20:19:00 -
[2353]
Originally by: lofty29 ]Thing is, theres nothing to add. Every role is filled tbh.
Agreed, I mean what Dictors, new crusers, ECM ships isn't enough? Well I'm pretty much done. I sincerely hope a few get fired and careers get ruined over this crap. Their obviously don't have talent for game design when they don't have something to copy off of previously done for them. Will keep in touch via alliance and other public forum after my accounts expire. Perhaps we'll see all of our alliances reformed in another game to duke it out in the future.
Z CCP (Producers of Slide Show Online) takin the fun out of EVE, one patch at a time. |
petergriffen
Amarr Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 20:19:00 -
[2354]
Heavy Artillery Battleship/SubCapital Ship
Able to fit 2 capital ship turrets / launchers
Dread-In-Siege type damage and tracking + extreme range (200km+) Can't hit BS for crap, but causes problems for capitals Weak armor + low tankability makes them prime targets for support-class ships
Couple these with a Black Ops BS jump portal, and one could 'bring in the heavy artillery' at a distance.
|
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 20:19:00 -
[2355]
Originally by: Arnoud Langen hmm im sure they can think of something... carriers that have better bonusses for remote repping is a start... Carriers that have more health... so kind of like WoW (ahhh I said the W word) you have a warrior... but it can do several things... but not all at the same time. So you could just splice the carrier up in several types of carriers.
We do get "spliced up" for different duties. When I am in combat I have a completly different setup then when I am repairing a pos or station. It's no different then every other ship in game.
|
Joy Yin
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 20:21:00 -
[2356]
I think this nerf is crazy. It takes away the long term goal of many players, makes alot of the older players feel like they waisted alot of time and money and turns carriers/moms into glorified POS repairers. I mean why call them capital and supercapital ships if they are not meant to be powerful.
But...
If those cancelling and leaving eve are serious about it, then don't waist all that time and money spent training your characters.
I will gladly give a new home for these estranged characters, i'll even pay the transfer fee!!! Send em to me!! Your characters will have a nice comfy home and you will make a newbie happy.
Joy Yin
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 20:21:00 -
[2357]
Edited by: Kerfira on 23/10/2007 20:23:46
Originally by: Arnoud Langen hmm im sure they can think of something... carriers that have better bonusses for remote repping is a start...
Problem is that remote repping with carriers is completely useless except for other capital ships.
First of all you have to contend with lag. You'll not even have whoever asks for rep locked by the time he dies. Secondly, even if you have no lag, in a proper fleetfight with focused fire, he'll be dead anyway before you lock. Third, even if you lock him, he'll most likely be dead before your rep cycle sets in. Fourth, even if your first rep cycle sets in, he may well die before the next one comes up.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Jaleera Kaisin
Amarr Eve Defence Force Praesidium Libertatis
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 20:22:00 -
[2358]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
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.
How does an "idea" yesterday get to
Originally by: CCP Abathur
We have a lot of things that we are testing internally for Trinity that get updated to the test server periodically. The delegation idea is just one of them.
Ummm - an "idea" from yesterday developed AND in test in 24 hours - I don't bloody think so. This is a very very bad move CCP
Add another 4 accounts to the cancellation list if this goes ahead, I'm tired of ****ing money down the drain training for toys which you then take away invalidating my time, my money and my enjoyment of the game.
|
Spare me
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 20:22:00 -
[2359]
Edited by: Spare me on 23/10/2007 20:23:05
Originally by: XoPhyte
Originally by: Spare me Hey maybe a stupid suggestion... but instead of nerfing... why not ADD something to counter carriers. I think i saw the idea before but.. how about making more cap ships... You might scare off most of the carrier pilots this way and make capital ship blobbing useless. However you also lose a lot of costumers. So how about adding some new kind of cap ship somewhere between BS and Carrier/Dread... or just more kinds of capital ships, since now we are restricted to either carrier or dread. More different kinds of capitals will spread the pilots a bit more and not force them to fly 1 of 2 kinds of capitals.
It's already been proven hundreds of times (just look at the killboards) that carriers are VERY easily killed. So those ships exist today, they are called battleships or commandships or hacs.
yes easily killable when they arent spidertanked... and 100 carriers in system next door is just impossible to defend against without using a huge cap fleet yourself... So maybe they should put more tankable ships in Eve... ships that are slow and capable of tanking a crapload of damage... just like capital ships... but more along the lines of a BS.
|
cpu939
Gallente OffBeat Creations PURGE.
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 20:44:00 -
[2360]
ok i have had a bit of time to think of this and have come up with this
titans nerfed:- dd no longed by cyno jump timer added 10 minute wait
dreads nerfed:- 2 targets
carriers/mothership about to be nerfed lose of drones/ frighter
ok now on to my point i am starting to wonder if this is to cull the population of eve.
i know that ccp are working on a new game and there for i wonder if they are planing in the background to close eve by getting rid of a load of player starting with the older player base as it is easy to change the game they like to play.
the way i see this going is bit by bit player cancel there account and then ccp are able to say that the cost of keeping eve going is to high and we will close the server down.
now to help people move over to the new game they will give game credit to those who's account will go on passed the closing date i.e. server closes on the 1st of x month and your account runs out on the 12 they will give you time credit to play till the 12 on there new game.
this move will also make more lag as fleets of ships will have to travel with the carrier and ms to keep them safe. more ships in one system = lag we all know this from systems like jita.
i wounder if ccp will come forward and admit they are closing eve down as this is the only reason i see for this move by them!
p.s. sorry for the bad spelling and grammar
|
|
Mark Syrus
Gallente Crimson Shadows Crimson Empire.
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 20:45:00 -
[2361]
BOOOO!!! nuff said ---------------------------------------------- Mark Syrus Founder/CEO of Crimson Shadows
|
Arnoud Langen
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 20:45:00 -
[2362]
Well as it is now it's very easy... I stay in EVE with my 2 accounts and hope they dont start nerfing the ships I trained for. And if they do, there are plenty of other games out there to enjoy.
|
Aleric Vikyz
Shadow Of The Light R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 20:48:00 -
[2363]
I think the playerbase of EVE has generally been very dedicated and forgiving. It's rediculous that what we want is now not only completely disregarded but CCP has lied to us and basically told us all to go **** ourselves.
What happened to you CCP?
|
SirMolly
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 20:48:00 -
[2364]
Originally by: Khes Edited by: Khes on 23/10/2007 20:43:20 I think this change is a good thing.
I see it like this: Fighter wielding capital ships is not suppose to be the main weapon in a fleet. It is suppose to give the other ships in the fleet an edge by adding to their DPS with its fighters.
In other words, the fleets reason to exist should not be to aid the capital, the capitals reason to exist should be to aid the fleet and give it an edge.
Qft. Carriers/MS MUST be nerfed. There is no space for solopwnmobiles in EVE. Especially not when there are >70 solopwnmobiles in one system at once and you can't do anything against them (spider tanking, fighter lag).
|
Akov Stohs
THE INQUISITI0N
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 20:48:00 -
[2365]
The changes are on SiSi, Ccp has completely ignored this thread.
All of my accounts are now canceled, maybe the sound of my wallet closing is louder then the sounds of this thread.
|
Evangeline Dol'Amazi
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 20:48:00 -
[2366]
Ok, having slogged through all of this...
1. It hasn't been implemented, it's an idea, and, quite frankly, having watched a lot of "ideas" turn into realities that everyone said would "make the game unplayable," and that game remaining playable, I am inclined to give the developers a bit of slack here.
2. I see motherships and carriers quite differently. The whole point of a carrier in modern fleets is to provide a force multiplier through the use of the various aircraft they carry. The carrier itself has minimal offensive capabilities, and is little more than a radar/sonar ship with air traffic control. The fighters/bombers/specialty aircraft provide the carrier with its flexibility and power. It should be the same in Eve. Carriers should be lightly armored, much less than a battleship, as they aren't intended to be right in the thick of the fighting. Perhaps give the carrier some bonuses for use of small/medium weapons for defense, and the ability to launch fighters and drones in fair numbers, say being able to keep 5 fighters and 10 drones for itself, while partitioning out it's other fighters to other pilots in the gang.
I think Motherships should be the logistics monsters of a fleet. Repair, recharge, re-energize, what have you, it should be a "mother" to the other ships in the fleet. It should not have anywhere near the fighter/drone abilities of a carrier. It's not a carrier. It is a support ship. It should be really good at support.
In short, carriers should be a strategic, ranged vehicle, with little offense/defense on their own, and motherships should be fairly tough support ships capable of being in the thick of the fight, while keeping their fleet mates alive.
3. Lastly, the lag issue...Well, if you could just fix that. Thanks.
Eve
|
Clerence Thomas
Gallente Black Lotus Heavy Industries Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 20:49:00 -
[2367]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
Originally by: Kerfira Edited by: Kerfira on 23/10/2007 16:07:29 Edited by: Kerfira on 23/10/2007 16:06:03
Originally by: CCP Zulupark We are still monitoring this thread and reading the ideas posts we agree with that come up in it. We will, as previously stated, keep you up to date on any kind of progress when we implement this.
Corrected this for you. Eris made that fact plain for all to see.....
"Cleverly" changing my post to make some point I'm not quite sure of what is will not change the fact that we are still monitoring this thread and listening to all ideas/complaints you have.
Meh, I thought it was cute. Very much in line with what i've unfortunately come to expect from probes like this from CCP in the past. Fortunately it actually won't affect me much 'cause i'm mostly a POS hugging carebear anyway, so here's 2 accounts you won't be losing. :) Though I could use with some anti-hate for my cyno pilots, and a fix to the fighters - make them able to actually be the wtfpwn things they are presented as (they aren't trust me, i'm on my 2nd carrier and had a 3rd blown out from under me on the way to market.)
Anyway, cheers guys. Hopefully you'll surprise us all and come up with a serious un-nerf to compensate for the last year of capital hate. :\
-- "There are over 500 million fire arms in worldwide circulation. That is one fire arm for every twelve people on the planet. The only question is... How do we arm the other eleven?"
|
Femaref
Caldari Mercenaries of Andosia Veritas Immortalis
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 20:49:00 -
[2368]
Originally by: Xune Edited by: Xune on 23/10/2007 20:37:08 Edited by: Xune on 23/10/2007 20:34:12 Edited by: Xune on 23/10/2007 20:33:34
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 ?
Xune (sad sad kitten in 7 day¦s should have been her 4 eve birhtday but shes NOT going to have it when she dosent get an answer)
edit: needed to fix some stuff
QFT, tested it also. Blogging about something worse, and then bring something even more worse? AHA.
|
Haakelen
Gallente United Forces Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 20:50:00 -
[2369]
Originally by: Evangeline Dol'Amazi Ok, having slogged through all of this...
1. It hasn't been implemented, it's an idea, and, quite frankly, having watched a lot of "ideas" turn into realities that everyone said would "make the game unplayable," and that game remaining playable, I am inclined to give the developers a bit of slack here.
It's live on Sisi right now.
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 20:51:00 -
[2370]
Edited by: Kerfira on 23/10/2007 20:52:29
Originally by: Evangeline Dol'Amazi I think Motherships should be the logistics monsters of a fleet. Repair, recharge, re-energize, what have you, it should be a "mother" to the other ships in the fleet.
See here: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=618279&page=91#2728 ....why that idea is as dead as a very dead thing.....
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
|
Coolgamer
Minmatar Res Publica R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 20:52:00 -
[2371]
Originally by: Necronomicon
Originally by: ZaKma [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.
Our carriers dont have a module that gives our drones a stupid amount of extra damage, or one that that makes our ships able to ultra tank...oh wait...we do, but it cuts our offensive capability to ZERO.
Dreads and carriers can be compared about as much as Cruise Launchers and Mining Lasers, yeah, they both use a high slot, whoopdy doo, that is where the similarities end.
You sir obviously have little knowledge of the game, and you are insulting those of us who do. I suggest you refrain from further irritating the commuity with your throwaway 'whining' comments when addressing players who have been in this game longer than you have probably been in CCP.
gogo bite him Necro
SAVE carrier and Moms |
Devoras2
Amarr KIA Corp KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 20:54:00 -
[2372]
Im just here for the sig.
It's great being Amarr, aint it?
|
Vily
Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 20:54:00 -
[2373]
T20 thread = 170 pages over 2 weeks
Carrier mom thread = 90 pages over 2 days
i wonder how this will turn out
not good i think -
|
Sykosys
Minmatar Masuat'aa Matari Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 20:55:00 -
[2374]
Firstly I AM a carrier pilot
Ok this is bad. Just plain bad
First of all the Triage module sucks. Not many people use it since it is certain death for a carrier. Not being able to be repped while repping and no use of drones for ship which takes so many months to use is pretty ********.
But now you want to try and gear carriers to a more support oriented role by nerfing the amount of drones/fighters one can launch at a time?? How is this productive?? Seriously where is the sense in all this. Lag isnt reduced since if you have other guys with you they get the fighters anyway.
And since you want to gear the carrier towards a more logistics role how about actually making it a usefull logistics role. Fix the triage mod and allow the use of fighters. Lag isnt going anywhere as thats a whole other issue. But you devs are really making a huge mistake with this "fix"
Cmon this has to be the worse thing CCP has done since they introduced the game without clones
|
Hellrazer
Dark Star LTD Atrocitas
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 20:57:00 -
[2375]
If you want to make carriers suck? Why don't you just add some new types of carriers to the mix? You already added that mining capital ship. Just add a carrier group that only does logistics and no warfare for those who want to fly capital ambulances. I don't know give it a bomb kind of like the one that breaks target locks on ships so it can escape or something. Make a new group of fighter class drones that heal at a greater rate. This would be perfect for pilots that trained Logistics to level 5 by accident and it would balance out all the whining on these forums.
HR
|
Marosia Lisaiya
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 21:03:00 -
[2376]
Way to disappoint a new player CCP. I can't even fly a Carrier - that's not really the point - the point is your nonexistant care for your playerbase. You even got me so hooked I bought an alt-account almost right away. Now however.. get a clue.
Subscription Status: Cancelled Will be suspended11/6/2007 Cancel Subscription Cancellation Expires: 11/6/2007 9:27:16 PM Remaining Playtime: 14d:0h:44m
Subscription Status: Cancelled Will be suspended10/23/2007 Cancel Subscription Cancellation Expires: 10/23/2007 9:19:07 PM Remaining Playtime: 0d:0h:34m
|
Grath Telkin
Amarr STK Scientific Black-Out
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 21:03:00 -
[2377]
So im not a cap pilot, but i do have one question for CCP:
You guys fired this hoser already right?
Seriously, if you want to shut down the greatest game ever, just pull the plug, dont tarnish your already questionable reputation by doing something so incredibly stupid. You can hear it all around EVE now if you actually take the time to listen.."If this change goes through, i quit"
Well i got news for you, the petition against this action is getting pretty long, and if all those guys quit, you can bet eve will be a pretty empty place, as the rest of us will be leaving as well.
So regardless, if this change goes through, the holmes that came up with the idea will be out of a job as your company will swiftly be out of money. Do us a favor, leave our game alone, and send him back to the local Walmart to re-assume his job at price checking feminine products.
EVE has taken enough hits to its player base this year without this asshat making things worse.
|
Sjoor
S.A.S Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 21:03:00 -
[2378]
As expected 3000 reply's, almost a 100 pages full, ccp doesn't care a bit.
Let's be honest, the guys that fly the mons and carriers are playing the game too long. 3-6 months average evetime is what the subscribers have. Eve is still growing every time I login. Guess the time has come to write off some oldies that whine to much about their 'overpowered logistic ships'.
Seriously looking for a new game now tho, guess you can drop me in the oldtimers row that needs to be removed.
Shame tho. ----
Remove aggro reset on jump, remove secure can concord flagging |
Regat Kozovv
Caldari E X O D U S Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 21:13:00 -
[2379]
Originally by: Hellrazer Just add a carrier group that only does logistics and no warfare for those who want to fly capital ambulances.
That would be awesome. Can I get a capital lights/siren module that I can blast in local?
|
Lorn Yeager
Gallente Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 21:13:00 -
[2380]
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.
You put people who pay your salary on hold? Ballsy move.
|
|
War Bear
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 21:13:00 -
[2381]
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.
I seroiusly hope so. The fact you guys actually had already coded this stuff before even mentioning it to the rest of us makes me a bit leery as to what exactly you all are doing\planning on doing. I don't abide by ANY carrier nerfing so the fact you're "addressing our concerns" means to me that you're still planning on doing something that we're not going to like regardless of how much of a positive "For the greater good!" spin you put on it.
Everything is funny with the Benny Hill theme song |
Haakelen
Gallente United Forces Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 21:14:00 -
[2382]
Originally by: Kerfira
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.
Translation: "We're still going ahead with this. We just need time to sugarcoat it...."
How hard is it to write "We're not going to do this!" as a reply instead of writing posts without content as this one?
THIS, goddamnit.
|
Grath Telkin
Amarr STK Scientific Black-Out
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 21:15:00 -
[2383]
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.
Translation: We hate our job, we hate EVE, we all want to quit, and until you do, were stuck here, so were introducing the worst idea since "+ sized spandex shorts"
|
Xune
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 21:15:00 -
[2384]
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.
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.
[qoute]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 ?[qoute]
|
Crystal Starbreeze
The Ankou The Reckoning.
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 21:15:00 -
[2385]
I too am looking for a different game currently, unfortunately Eve was unique and i cant hope to find a game like it. It is sad to see Eve taking the SOE approach similar to SWG and with this many clients opposed to any idea even close to what ws suggested and now seemingly implemented.
With that said I am also canceling my multiple accounts.
I will renew and continue to play eve if this issue is dealt with to the satisfaction of the community. I'm not saying just my acceptance, but a community where at least half accept the change. Currently I sense over 90% are against any change and you are ignoring us. That I just cant deal with. I stole this image because it was fitting, Sorry!
|
Maxima Maxi
Pink Bunnies C0VEN
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 21:16:00 -
[2386]
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=620229
|
Law Enforcer
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 21:16:00 -
[2387]
Originally by: Kerfira Edited by: Kerfira on 23/10/2007 21:14:28
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.
You've already said that. We didn't believe you then.....
Translation: "We're still going ahead with this. We just need time to sugarcoat it...."
How hard is it to write "We're not going to do this!" as a reply instead of writing posts without content as this one?
I agree. a "we're going to go ahead and do this despite your nearly 100 page protest" dev blog is coming soon. you'll be able to launch five fighters and stuff! it's teh greats.
|
Cadela Fria
Amarr Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 21:16:00 -
[2388]
Edited by: Cadela Fria on 23/10/2007 21:17:51
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.
Clarfying does not imply abandoning the idea, only saying it in another way while still sticking to the original plan, or something similar.
|
Icome4u
Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 21:19:00 -
[2389]
Originally by: Cadela Fria Edited by: Cadela Fria on 23/10/2007 21:17:51
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.
Clarfying does not imply abandoning the idea, only saying it in another way while still sticking to the original plan, or something similar.
^^That!
|
Law Enforcer
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 21:21:00 -
[2390]
Originally by: CCP Abathur Update - We've been working hard to address your concerns although for the greater good carriers are still being nerfed. There will be a new dev blog up very soon which should hopefully clarify things a bit. Hang in there, guys and gals.
edited to reflect what's really going to happen.
|
|
Dionisius
Gallente Critical Analysis Te-Ka
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 21:21:00 -
[2391]
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.
You'de better be working faster than a modded Supra gaining speed because the clock seems to be against you guys. _____________________________________
|
Mag's
MASS Ministry Of Amarrian Secret Service
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 21:21:00 -
[2392]
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.
I shall hang tight and await your response.
Mag's
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 21:21:00 -
[2393]
What's most tragic is, that even after almost 100 pages of almost unilateral protest, they STILL haven't felt any need to tell us what the PROBLEM is.... just that carriers are going to be (effectively) taken out of the game because they feel like it....
Talk about treating your customers as dirt....
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Dachtor
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 21:22:00 -
[2394]
Well...still mad, glad for more dev responses but not reassured by the wording as people have already mentioned
I will await dev blog before making a decision whether my account should renew in 3 days
|
shinsushi
Amarr Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 21:22:00 -
[2395]
I have an alt who is a carrier pilot, and to me these changes are fine. Sure, no more fighter spam, but I was too cheap to loose fighters over and over again anyway.
Carriers are great for spider tanks, and thats what I use them for. Well, that and hauling.
AMARR - Taking it up the butt since 2005 |
Haakelen
Gallente United Forces Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 21:23:00 -
[2396]
Anything except 'It's not being done', and you're going to see even more outrage than what you're seeing now. I kinda doubt it's a really verbose apology.
|
Turin
Caldari Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 21:23:00 -
[2397]
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.
Again, thank you for the reply. I am still moving to empire tonight in anticipation of canceling.
_________________________________
|
wifi
Space Monkeys
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 21:25:00 -
[2398]
Originally by: Xune Edited by: Xune on 23/10/2007 21:16:16
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.
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 ? Quote:
would love to her a statement here too.
|
Jin Entres
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 21:25:00 -
[2399]
Meanwhile in a parallel universe...
CCCP Zulupork > Hey guys, the last few seconds we were looking at an idea and decided to dump it immediately.
Just a comic relief. Keep raging! ---
|
Enraged Mado
Caldari Shadow Assasins Dark Matter Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 21:26:00 -
[2400]
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.
It's hard to throw away the idea? -------
|
|
Larsonist
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 21:33:00 -
[2401]
CCP why dont you just make an existing cruiser, from each race, that gets a bonus to killing fighters.
problem solved...we can all go home and keep playing..
lars
|
Kwint Sommer
Incoherent Inc Otaku Invasion
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 21:34:00 -
[2402]
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.
That was a horrible coincidence CCP. You "float the idea" of drastic changes which bring 90 something pages worth of angry and disillusioned responses and then it appears you've implemented said changes on the test server and in my two years of experience 99% of what goes on the test server ends up in the game -admittedly with sometimes heavy modification- so it looked like you had decided to screw virtually all old players, break two ship classes, lie to us about it and then do it despite massive outcry and some very solid reasons against it. In fact, aside from two devs saying it was a coincidence I see nothing but evidence for the situation I just described. I've held off unsubscribing to give you a chance to explain yourselves -may be it is a coincidence and you're coming to your senses rather than blindly pushing forward- but if this dev blog doesn't show that you give a damn about your players you won't be billing me again.
It's become pretty clear in the last few days that you don't give a damn about the integrity of your game, at least show that you care about the players.
Sig removed. Please keep sigs to 400x120 pixels and 24000 bytes in size or less. -Kaemonn |
Arshes Nei
Omega Fleet Enterprises Executive Outcomes
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 21:34:00 -
[2403]
This is really getting out of hand. Whatever you think about these changes, getting angry and calling devs names wont help anybody. Those guys at ccp are doing their job, they dont want to ruin your gameplay, murder your dog or snatch your girlfriend from you, so everybody calm down a bit.
And those people who have lost all faith in the devteam, who cancel their accounts over mere ideas getting discussed, and are ready to always believe the worst. This change is not the problem. Your government is not trying to read your mind, and ccp is not trying to ruin their own game for some wicked agenda. If you think the guys at ccp are such lowlifes, for the sake of god, just quit already and spare all of us thinking otherwise having to read that crap again and again.
For the record, im against the change also. But that is no excuse to act like a ******, i can disagree with people without questioning their sanity/qualification for life/job. In the end its just a game, and its ccp's job to try making it fun for everyone. You dont have fun? Quit. But give them a damn chance to atleast explain their reasons, and no that doesnt mean pointing a gun to their head saying "do it now".
Sorry but that had to get out.
|
Prydeless
Vengeance of the Fallen
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 21:34:00 -
[2404]
Shacknews just posted about it. Its getting out to the media
Disclaimer: I am a God. |
Larsonist
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 21:35:00 -
[2405]
CCP why dont you just make an existing cruiser, from each race, that gets a bonus to killing fighters.
problem solved...we can all go home and keep playing..
lars reposted for epic love
|
Robet Katrix
Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 21:35:00 -
[2406]
whats the ETA of this NEW dev-blog? an hour? 2? tommorow morning?
this is how anger works... I get mad, you **** on me, I get madder. You ignore me, I get madder. you tell me to meet you soon... I stew even more.
as said before, no compromise is acceptable here.
|
Rhaven
Praetorian BlackGuard PURGE.
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 21:36:00 -
[2407]
Originally by: Pallidum Treponema
Originally by: lofty29
Originally by: Spare me Hey maybe a stupid suggestion... but instead of nerfing... why not ADD something to counter carriers. I think i saw the idea before but.. how about making more cap ships... You might scare off most of the carrier pilots this way and make capital ship blobbing useless. However you also lose a lot of costumers. So how about adding some new kind of cap ship somewhere between BS and Carrier/Dread... or just more kinds of capital ships, since now we are restricted to either carrier or dread. More different kinds of capitals will spread the pilots a bit more and not force them to fly 1 of 2 kinds of capitals.
Thing is, theres nothing to add. Every role is filled tbh.
Not quite true. Let's face it. CCP are worried about carriers. So were the powers in WWII. Carriers were stronger than they had previously expected. So, what did they do?
They developed new ships and weapons, and adapted the ones they had. New cruisers and destroyers were built, who had far better anti-air gunnery than before. Radar systems were built that could track and control said guns. Missiles were designed that could reach aircraft at even longer distances.
At the same time, things got developed on the carrier side as well. They got more and more effective at what they were doing etc.
In eve? Well, how about an anti-drone boat is developed? Mind you, this ship NEEDS to be thorougly tested before it even hits the testserver, or it'll break the game further.
hmm something that can kill fighters quicker... you mean that frigs and distroyers can't kill them fast enough with fighters not hitting them but maybe once every 10-15 shots... In all my engagements that I have been in against carriers frigs and distroyers have had the job of killing fighters. they kill them fast. fighters as they are now have a hard time hitting frigs and some distroyer and some cruisers. a Dictor can ruin a carriers day in a hartbeat and only beign able to deploy 5 fighters if it is being attacked by a dictor and a BS or two just made carriers useless you put a bubble on a carrier and it can't jump or warp. you kill its fighters and guess what it is a sitting duck. IF this hits TQ then both my accounts will be canceled along with several others that I know of that dont post on these forums. Plenty of other games out and other game that are coming out that can take the place of EVE. guess it is for CCP to decide but making a nerf that doesn't make sence shouldn't even be a thought.
|
Amaron Ghant
Caldari Ascent of Ages Dark Matter Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 21:36:00 -
[2408]
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.
"Clarify" is not the same as "rethink" or "modify" or even "forget about"
Bleh.
|
Icome4u
Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 21:38:00 -
[2409]
Originally by: Arshes Nei This is really getting out of hand. Whatever you think about these changes, getting angry and calling devs names wont help anybody. Those guys at ccp are doing their job, they dont want to ruin your gameplay, murder your dog or snatch your girlfriend from you, so everybody calm down a bit.
And those people who have lost all faith in the devteam, who cancel their accounts over mere ideas getting discussed, and are ready to always believe the worst. This change is not the problem. Your government is not trying to read your mind, and ccp is not trying to ruin their own game for some wicked agenda. If you think the guys at ccp are such lowlifes, for the sake of god, just quit already and spare all of us thinking otherwise having to read that crap again and again.
For the record, im against the change also. But that is no excuse to act like a ******, i can disagree with people without questioning their sanity/qualification for life/job. In the end its just a game, and its ccp's job to try making it fun for everyone. You dont have fun? Quit. But give them a damn chance to atleast explain their reasons, and no that doesnt mean pointing a gun to their head saying "do it now".
Sorry but that had to get out.
Being nice doesn't work. They only answer to threats. So the threats are here, hundreds of accounts being canceled. Give it a weak and it will be thousands. Lets see if CCP actually has some smart DEV's and NOT go through with this stupid idea.
|
Robet Katrix
Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 21:39:00 -
[2410]
Originally by: Prydeless Shacknews just posted about it. Its getting out to the media
link for the lazy?
|
|
Rematha'klan
Gallente Dragon's Rage Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 21:40:00 -
[2411]
erh yeah - bought a 1.5 bil worth ship, to be able to use the same amount of drones as a frigging cruiser or a bs...
I wouldent hand out a fighter to my mother if she played the game, let alone some guy from across the planet ive never seen. Hell, it aint his fighter he's gonna use, so why be carefull with it. Carriers are ment to be spawning hordes of drones, thats why they are big, bad and cost a s***load of isk. Wats next? nerfing dreads to do lesser damage to pos'?
balancing? sure, np - why not balance the price of the fighters or the mods vs other ships? Devide & Conquer |
Phoenus
Caldari Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 21:40:00 -
[2412]
Originally by: Robet Katrix
Originally by: Prydeless Shacknews just posted about it. Its getting out to the media
link for the lazy?
http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/49584
|
Sykosys
Minmatar Masuat'aa Matari Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 21:40:00 -
[2413]
Originally by: Robet Katrix
Originally by: Prydeless Shacknews just posted about it. Its getting out to the media
link for the lazy?
http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/49584
Pls dont do this CCP. Months of training for nothing. . .
|
Grath Telkin
Amarr STK Scientific Black-Out
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 21:40:00 -
[2414]
Originally by: Arshes Nei This is really getting out of hand. Whatever you think about these changes, getting angry and calling devs names wont help anybody. Those guys at ccp are doing their job, they dont want to ruin your gameplay, murder your dog or snatch your girlfriend from you, so everybody calm down a bit.
And those people who have lost all faith in the devteam, who cancel their accounts over mere ideas getting discussed, and are ready to always believe the worst. This change is not the problem. Your government is not trying to read your mind, and ccp is not trying to ruin their own game for some wicked agenda. If you think the guys at ccp are such lowlifes, for the sake of god, just quit already and spare all of us thinking otherwise having to read that crap again and again.
For the record, im against the change also. But that is no excuse to act like a ******, i can disagree with people without questioning their sanity/qualification for life/job. In the end its just a game, and its ccp's job to try making it fun for everyone. You dont have fun? Quit. But give them a damn chance to atleast explain their reasons, and no that doesnt mean pointing a gun to their head saying "do it now".
Sorry but that had to get out.
well if they arent out to ruin the game, then this idea should be publicly closed, as bad juju for the game in general. Dont defend them, at this juncture, they are far from deserving of a defense. They are hellbent on this idea, as it IS on SISI now, and it will likely see live server soon, which WILL ruin the game when the player base starts quiting en-mass. Sure, all the miners will be in hog heaven, as ALL they pvp'rs and fleet fighters will be gone.
This is the death of the game. If you cant realize that in 100 pages of anger, then you need better glasses
|
wifi
Space Monkeys
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 21:41:00 -
[2415]
Why are you trying to argue about it, they already put it on the testserver exactly as they wanted it to be. Read thishere and if you dont get that all of it has nothing to do with the bandwith then read it anew. They implanted it exactly how they wanted it to implent. And are not telling the truth about it. Scrap the whole carrier nerf. Not even " ok we nerf fighter dammage -20%" or something.
|
Trishan
Green Men Incorporated
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 21:41:00 -
[2416]
Originally by: Amaron Ghant
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.
"Clarify" is not the same as "rethink" or "modify" or even "forget about"
Bleh.
Why should they? They have some mysterious reason for changing them that they have preferred not to illustrate so far (even when CCP has repeatedly posted). Given that their reason has not moved, they will do something about it. If not this, something else. But be sure something will be done until that concern is addressed.
Of course its a bit hard for people to talk about that when nobody really knows what's going though CCPs collective heads.
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 21:41:00 -
[2417]
Originally by: Larsonist CCP why dont you just make an existing cruiser, from each race, that gets a bonus to killing fighters.
problem solved...we can all go home and keep playing..
lars reposted for epic love
Cruisers are already pretty damn good at killing fighters..... doesn't take them long....
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Khes
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 21:41:00 -
[2418]
Edited by: Khes on 23/10/2007 21:44:40 I would like to see a change that makes me go "Gulp, they have a mothership and 2 carriers supporting their 20 BS, this will be a hard nut to *****."
Now it is more like "Ok, another 15 enemy carrriers and 5 motherships just showed up in addition to their active 10. But thats is nothing, we have 15 more carriers waiting in a nearby system in addition to the 20 we have active in combat now.
I like the see carriers and motherships as a support to a fleet, not BEEING the fleet.
|
Xthril Ranger
hirr Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 21:44:00 -
[2419]
If you want carriers to be logistic ships you should not add ships like heavy interdictors and dreadnoughts that can not be remote repaired. Those are key ships to keep alive so should be primary target for the repairers. . you'll never jump alone
|
n4t3
Amarr Corp 1 Allstars Insurgency
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 21:44:00 -
[2420]
Ok I really do not like the idea for the fact is u can't see fighters taking damage when they are assigned to someone and i dont want my fighters in the hands of someone else considering i paid for them and i own them. Further more the 5 fighters can't do jack at killing anything by yourself. if i get jumped by a bunch of people i want all 12 fighters in use and out of my archon killing people so i can get out of there. CCP Seriously you need to stop nerfing our fun or nerf the ammount of money we have to pay to play.
|
|
Larsonist
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 21:45:00 -
[2421]
Quote: Cruisers are already pretty damn good at killing fighters..... doesn't take them long....
true, but in the name of balance and peace with harmony, this would make it so that there is a definative "counter", lethal counter, to carriers.
lars
|
NismoR
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 21:45:00 -
[2422]
well i know for some people like my self have worked hard to train up for the use of carriers and dreads and have worked hard to get the isk to buy the ships fighters and the best mods to fit them
all i can say is that if ccp does this it will make the whole time i have been on the game a waste of time because that is what i have worked for
and if this does happen my 4 accounts will be cancled and reprocessed
|
Icome4u
Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 21:49:00 -
[2423]
Originally by: Wigglytuff Personally I like the nerf to carriers.
Whine all you people want at me, they're imbalanced as far as PVP goes, just like the moros, and both are imbalanced for the same damn reasons.
However I think the nerf should only apply to two things:
1. Drones 2. MS max fighters, make the pilot able to control 15, and the other 0-10 they can delegate to others.
No more carriers being able to smite every ship they see, MS stay stronger in offense and still more useful via delegation of as many fighters as they want, and they still have their immunities and ecm of doom.
Only idiots die to a carrier or a MS. You ether can tank them, or run away. Sure you can't kill them but you CAN kill their fighters. 20 million isk a peice, i say thats pretty damn freaking fun to kill.
|
Arokan Manturi
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 21:49:00 -
[2424]
Edited by: Arokan Manturi on 23/10/2007 21:49:27 I think the proposed changes are great! GO CCP
No really, im serious...
|
Mollernak
ARK-CORP RONA Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 21:50:00 -
[2425]
Simple answer NO!!!!!
oh and.....
Your account will be suspended at the end of the current play period. Expires on 2007.11.16
PS am not a carrier pilot
|
sweetheart
Black Reign
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 21:50:00 -
[2426]
May aswell sell my carrier and mods , and wait to use the jump skills of a Black op's , or they gonna nerf the hell out of that too .............................................. To Win is Everything
|
xBANDWAGONx
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 21:50:00 -
[2427]
good change imo... go CCP!!! -- so as not to confuse you, everything below those two little lines is my forum signature. Now i just need to think of something worth putting here... |
Acacia Everto
Wings of Redemption Black Flag Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 21:51:00 -
[2428]
Edited by: Acacia Everto on 23/10/2007 21:51:55 How about this CCP?
Listen to your player base and listen to what they want, or you'll find them ready to leave.
If this nerf goes through despite over 90 pages of no's (and very few yeses, a couple trolls, and a few people who don't know what they're talking about), I will very likely cancel at least two of my three accounts.
Why would I want to continue paying for a game which continually balances what makes this game fun? Carriers isn't even really about fun. Other ships you continually nerf due to crying/bad dev ideas RUINS THE GAME. Life isn't fair. Nor should EVE. You CONTINUALLY STATE that EVE is all about gritty realism. Guess what? Nobody is equal if you want gritty realism. Stop balancing things that don't need balanced.
I dread new features these days, as every time you introduce a new feature, you use it as an excuse to nerf something.
I hope for your sake that the new devblog is good, or you're going to have a riot of posts and cancellations on your hands. My corpmate, who has debated on selling his character or not will probably leave forever. Why would any of my former corpmates come back to a game which gets balanced constantly in a playing field that becomes increasingly bland?
There are things that did need balancing, such as NOS, but you there too ignored SUPERIOR IDEAS. I thought bandwidth, if it worked like I thought would be an awesome idea. I see now that it'll just be used to nerf Carriers from being useful ever again in combat as YOU INTENDED and we enjoyed.
Fighter drone platforms do not need balancing. Leave them alone CCP.
I cannot begin to describe the depths of the frustration I'm feeling with you. We're the ones who live in this universe, let us live how we want to. I really, really hope this devblog is good. Don't let me, and us (the playerbase) down.
|
Tressin Khiyne
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 21:52:00 -
[2429]
Why not just make it so that carriers with extreme drone controlling signals, interfere with each other, setting a max number of carriers a corp or alliance can have in a system at a time. This would make carrier use more tactical, as well as even out the battlefield some. To add to the effect, mods could be made to allow ships to hack a carrier's signal and disable or even take over drones.
I agree that there is no reason to have 50 carriers in one system, just make it suck if you do... or lag the drones! Yeah, too many carriers in the same alliance == drone lag. 5 carriers == 5 minute delay on drone responses.
|
Larsonist
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 21:52:00 -
[2430]
Quote: May aswell sell my carrier and mods , and wait to use the jump skills of a Black op's , or they gonna nerf the hell out of that too
good luck on that only people that will purchase a carrier now are those that are months and months away from them and are only wanting a big fancy hauler/pos repping machine. No one now will be purchasing them in enough quantities to meet the demand for the sales that will occur. price....through the floor
|
|
Olav
Minmatar KDM Corp Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 21:53:00 -
[2431]
so pl train 1-2 years for a ship and it cost 10 tines the amount of a BS then it get made usless i dont even have a carrier and are not training for it but if this change get made im quiting the game. its not often i post with my main but now i do.
CCP wantto make this change becouse they want to make it alot more easy for the new players in the game they forget the old players. ALL they are thinking about are the Money they can get from new player with multi accounts the yforget the old once that have stuck with this game for years and can fly those ships. CCP try and think about something els than the $ all the time. if you do thos you will lose a ****load of the old playe base i have talked to alot of them and tehy all say the same #ñ& THIS WHO have cake ????????????????????????????? |
Dionisius
Gallente Critical Analysis Te-Ka
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 21:54:00 -
[2432]
Originally by: sweetheart May aswell sell my carrier and mods , and wait to use the jump skills of a Black op's , or they gonna nerf the hell out of that too
Prolly nerf the black ops too, been looking at the specs that came out and they look pretty mean beasts. I'm sure that after the first ganks alot of whining and cheese will roll in the forums and those ships will be nerfed to death also.
Btw, i'm amazed in a negative sense that CCP doesn't seem sensible to listen just this once to their playerbase and seem to be willing to risk dozens of people leaving.
Either that or they are confident that numbers will rise no matter what. _____________________________________
|
Khes
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 21:55:00 -
[2433]
Originally by: Dionisius
Originally by: Khes Edited by: Khes on 23/10/2007 21:44:40 I would like to see a change that makes me go "Gulp, they have a mothership and 2 carriers supporting their 20 BS, this will be a hard nut to *****."
Now it is more like "Ok, another 15 enemy carrriers and 5 motherships just showed up in addition to their active 10. But thats is nothing, we have 15 more carriers waiting in a nearby system in addition to the 20 we have active in combat now.
I like the see carriers and motherships as a support to a fleet, not BEEING the fleet.
You and the people like you saying this have no ideia of what happens in fleet fights and have absolutely no clue on the meaning and definition of the word FLEET so please shut it.
Btw, post with your main.
Ok, im sorry, I guess I was imagening the last fleet-fight I was in.
|
TheAdj
Endless Destruction Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 21:55:00 -
[2434]
I understand the attempt to make carriers more of a support ship, but this is a step in the wrong direction. This is a pretty large carrier nerf and a monstrous mothership nerf, the entire point of a mothership is it can deploy more fighters. A lot of people delegate fighters as it is, you do not need to damage the carriers frontline ability just to make everyone do this. I can almost agree with the change to the number of regular drones however, being a ceptor pilot I cringe when I see 10 Warrior IIs pile out of a thanatos. I still don't think any of this is necessary however, they're fine as they are. ----------------
Alliance Killboard |
Sykosys
Minmatar Masuat'aa Matari Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 21:56:00 -
[2435]
Can deploy 3 additional Fighters per level
This is under the description of every mothership.
Only able to control 5 fighters is a HUGE nerf as some people truly cant be trusted in this game with figthers at all.
Why would you make such a harsh change to a ship which RELIES on its number of drones/fighters it can control. This makes no sense at all.
|
Arokan Manturi
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 21:57:00 -
[2436]
Originally by: Acacia Everto Edited by: Acacia Everto on 23/10/2007 21:51:55 How about this CCP?
Listen to your player base and listen to what they want, or you'll find them ready to leave.
If this nerf goes through despite over 90 pages of no's (and very few yeses, a couple trolls, and a few people who don't know what they're talking about), I will very likely cancel at least two of my three accounts.
Why would I want to continue paying for a game which continually balances what makes this game fun? Carriers isn't even really about fun. Other ships you continually nerf due to crying/bad dev ideas RUINS THE GAME. Life isn't fair. Nor should EVE. You CONTINUALLY STATE that EVE is all about gritty realism. Guess what? Nobody is equal if you want gritty realism. Stop balancing things that don't need balanced.
I dread new features these days, as every time you introduce a new feature, you use it as an excuse to nerf something.
I hope for your sake that the new devblog is good, or you're going to have a riot of posts and cancellations on your hands. My corpmate, who has debated on selling his character or not will probably leave forever. Why would any of my former corpmates come back to a game which gets balanced constantly in a playing field that becomes increasingly bland?
There are things that did need balancing, such as NOS, but you there too ignored SUPERIOR IDEAS. I thought bandwidth, if it worked like I thought would be an awesome idea. I see now that it'll just be used to nerf Carriers from being useful ever again in combat as YOU INTENDED and we enjoyed.
Fighter drone platforms do not need balancing. Leave them alone CCP.
I cannot begin to describe the depths of the frustration I'm feeling with you. We're the ones who live in this universe, let us live how we want to. I really, really hope this devblog is good. Don't let me, and us (the playerbase) down.
Can i have ur stuff?
|
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 21:57:00 -
[2437]
Originally by: Tressin Khiyne Why not just make it so that carriers with extreme drone controlling signals, interfere with each other, setting a max number of carriers a corp or alliance can have in a system at a time. This would make carrier use more tactical, as well as even out the battlefield some. To add to the effect, mods could be made to allow ships to hack a carrier's signal and disable or even take over drones.
I agree that there is no reason to have 50 carriers in one system, just make it suck if you do... or lag the drones! Yeah, too many carriers in the same alliance == drone lag. 5 carriers == 5 minute delay on drone responses.
Yep, but leave the 400-500 frigates and cruisers that jump into systems and cause the REAL lag alone, go after the 50 players who have dedicated a lot of time and effort into this game.
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 21:57:00 -
[2438]
Originally by: Yawgmoth So the only role for a carrier is to sit in at a POS assault and hopefully rep the dreads and maybe suck some hits off them.
Can't rep dreads in siege mode......
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Aurix Lexico
Euphoria Foundation
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 21:57:00 -
[2439]
Carriers and moms are fine. All this change would do is make them jump hauling POS huggers, and the most boring ships in eve. It would also screw ALOT of people over, people who have spent months (years in the case of moms) for something that is now useless.
ps, not a capital pilot
|
Dionisius
Gallente Critical Analysis Te-Ka
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 21:58:00 -
[2440]
Originally by: Khes
Originally by: Dionisius
Originally by: Khes Edited by: Khes on 23/10/2007 21:44:40 I would like to see a change that makes me go "Gulp, they have a mothership and 2 carriers supporting their 20 BS, this will be a hard nut to *****."
Now it is more like "Ok, another 15 enemy carrriers and 5 motherships just showed up in addition to their active 10. But thats is nothing, we have 15 more carriers waiting in a nearby system in addition to the 20 we have active in combat now.
I like the see carriers and motherships as a support to a fleet, not BEEING the fleet.
You and the people like you saying this have no ideia of what happens in fleet fights and have absolutely no clue on the meaning and definition of the word FLEET so please shut it.
Btw, post with your main.
Ok, im sorry, I guess I was imagening the last fleet-fight I was in.
What 5x5 rifters in Jita? Fantastic.
Your point makes no sense. _____________________________________
|
|
Jovialmadness
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 21:59:00 -
[2441]
Edited by: Jovialmadness on 23/10/2007 21:59:06 i was thinking, maybe the real issue here is money. if they make a hello kitty online game out of a sweet fairly functional game, then they can attract thousands and thousands of other players that like that sort of drizzle. Losing a couple thousand accounts from old schoolers is nothing to the multi-thousands they might gain. This is all, of course, assuming we dont absolutely slander the company out of game because of their slow progression towards some form of bizarre ship equality that some feel is acceptable.
i find it amazing that people seem to think that:
1. a 50 million skill point character should not be as powerful as a 5 million skill point character and 2. a 30 billion isk ship should not be as powerful as a 60 million isk ship.
If i even get a wiff the devs are ACTUALLY attempting this route.
Say adios amigos!!
Quote: As a side note, i liken capacitor to blood. Without blood, nothing can function in the body. I do NOT like being a race that bleeds quicker than anyone else. yes, i am an alt..Jovial Quote:
|
Hysidee
Black Avatar
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 21:59:00 -
[2442]
Originally by: Olav so pl train 1-2 years for a ship and it cost 10 tines the amount of a BS then it get made usless i dont even have a carrier and are not training for it but if this change get made im quiting the game. its not often i post with my main but now i do.
CCP wantto make this change becouse they want to make it alot more easy for the new players in the game they forget the old players. ALL they are thinking about are the Money they can get from new player with multi accounts the yforget the old once that have stuck with this game for years and can fly those ships. CCP try and think about something els than the $ all the time. if you do thos you will lose a ****load of the old playe base i have talked to alot of them and tehy all say the same #ñ& THIS
Its true, they might get new players signing up with multiple accounts, but at the same time old players with existing multiple accounts will be leaving...
Carriers are fine the way they are, as are motherships.
Last thing i will say on this CCP: You made changes a few months ago to make carriers more frontline orientated. Now you're countering it because the servers cant handle it?!?! This is not the players fault!!! Carriers and motherships will return to POS hugging ships, as there is 0 point in having them in front line action with the way things stand.
|
Cpt Abestos
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 22:01:00 -
[2443]
Originally by: Xune Edited by: Xune on 23/10/2007 20:37:08 Edited by: Xune on 23/10/2007 20:34:12 Edited by: Xune on 23/10/2007 20:33:34
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 ?
Xune (sad sad kitten in 7 day¦s should have been her 4 eve birhtday but shes NOT going to have it when she dosent get an answer)
edit: needed to fix some stuff
|
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 22:01:00 -
[2444]
It's funny how this topic labled "Will CCP be Blackmailed .... Again?" comes out in CAOD 1 month ago and talks about how newer players are complaining about fighters and then this "change" gets put into effect 30 days later.
Heres the topic... http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=595962
|
Bael Lightstorm
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 22:04:00 -
[2445]
I'm not a carrier pilot but in the time I've been playing this game I could have decided to spend my all my time and ISK going in that direction. If I had, I would be really hacked off now as all that time and investment could potentially be wasted. While this nerf may be justified from a balancing point of view (i'm not entirely convinced so far), it is a nerf that really hurts medium aged characters, especially those who have been very focused in their choice of skills or who are just about to become 'carrier ready'.
I think this thread shows the general feeling of the playerbase well enough... hopefully we will see a rethink of this 'idea'.
|
Khes
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 22:04:00 -
[2446]
Edited by: Khes on 23/10/2007 22:05:00
Originally by: Dionisius
What 5x5 rifters in Jita? Fantastic.
Your point makes no sense.
My point is that Im with CCP on their views that they want fighter-carrying capitals to be more of a support ship then a striking ship.
The fleet-battle Ive been in lately is spammed with carriers and the support is mostly there to kill as many enemy fighters as possible. And I belive that is the wrong direction the fleet-battles is going.
|
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 22:06:00 -
[2447]
Originally by: Khes My point is that Im with CCP on their views that they want fighter-carrying capitals to be more of a support ship then a striking ship.
The fleet-battle Ive been in lately is spammed with carriers and the support is mostly there to kill as many enemy fighters as possible. And I belive that is the wrong direction the fleet-battles is going.
Are you in the fleet battles on the side that brings hundreds of frigates and cruisers jumping through the gates? But thats alright right? I find it very amusing that the people that blob the most complain about a gang of 50.
Remove the frigate and cruiser blob, and the carrier "blob" would not be needed.
|
Gunship
Amarr THE INQUISITI0N
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 22:10:00 -
[2448]
Dear CCP,
Thats a very bad idea.
Could you please reconsider.
Kind regards Gunny
|
Kuroro Lucifer
Genei Ryodan
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 22:11:00 -
[2449]
Originally by: Kerfira yet they have not implemented any form of crowd control in the game.
Crowd Control Productions can't produce crowd control? Lies!
--- The spider will live forever
|
Andreas Kallesoee
Viper Squad Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 22:11:00 -
[2450]
If this change goes through in any shape or form that even smells of a nerf for my carrier and with pirat of the burning sea comming out in january i think i will have to take my monthly supscrition fees up for a seriouse reconsideration as i did not train for around a year and spend QUITE a few billion isk on going all over the place in my carrier to just have it pulled from under me and have it turned into a bad dominix with a bigger dronebay and a better tank but no where near the same posibilitys to run away.
|
|
Khes
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 22:14:00 -
[2451]
Originally by: XoPhyte
Originally by: Khes My point is that Im with CCP on their views that they want fighter-carrying capitals to be more of a support ship then a striking ship.
The fleet-battle Ive been in lately is spammed with carriers and the support is mostly there to kill as many enemy fighters as possible. And I belive that is the wrong direction the fleet-battles is going.
Are you in the fleet battles on the side that brings hundreds of frigates and cruisers jumping through the gates? But thats alright right? I find it very amusing that the people that blob the most complain about a gang of 50.
Remove the frigate and cruiser blob, and the carrier "blob" would not be needed.
All Im saying is that in a gang of 50 there should be more like 5 capitals and rest BS and smaller, and not 20 capitals. If capitals would make blobs go away, fine, but unfortunately they do not.
|
Agrigan
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 22:16:00 -
[2452]
Originally by: Gunship Dear CCP,
Thats a very bad idea.
Could you please reconsider.
Kind regards Gunny
Well put. I think if a thousand people quote that statement, CCP will listen.
|
Dionisius
Gallente Critical Analysis Te-Ka
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 22:16:00 -
[2453]
Originally by: Khes Edited by: Khes on 23/10/2007 22:05:00
Originally by: Dionisius
What 5x5 rifters in Jita? Fantastic.
Your point makes no sense.
My point is that Im with CCP on their views that they want fighter-carrying capitals to be more of a support ship then a striking ship.
The fleet-battle Ive been in lately is spammed with carriers and the support is mostly there to kill as many enemy fighters as possible. And I belive that is the wrong direction the fleet-battles is going.
Carriers are not support ships in the way CCP is nerfing them. Carriers will be completely defenseless ships not to mention useless.
If in a given battle the number of capital ships is high it was the defenders or atackers choice to use them a pretty valid one, carriers exist to be used and are valid battle units providing support either by the direct use of drones/fighters or anything else.
Killing these ships is just to satisfy a group of people that does not have a clue or concern on how the game works, wich is not completely bad, other prioritary issues have to be addressed other than carriers wich are not broken, hence they do not need fixing. _____________________________________
|
Veng3ance
Prophets Of a Damned Universe
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 22:16:00 -
[2454]
Edited by: Veng3ance on 23/10/2007 22:21:42 Please just keep the frontline carrier alive!
Carrier Limit of Regular drones allowed, but only 5 fighters.
Role Bonus 50% to Drone hitpoints and damage (Not effecting fighters)
Please please please.
|
lceman
Gallente THE INQUISITI0N
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 22:18:00 -
[2455]
Quote: The cake is a lie erhh, i mean the carrier nerf is a lie.
Please i've spent over 1 years training in capital for a nyx, i've put over 9 bill in mothership consortium, i do not like this idea.
If what not is, what is ?. |
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 22:18:00 -
[2456]
Originally by: Khes
Originally by: XoPhyte
Originally by: Khes My point is that Im with CCP on their views that they want fighter-carrying capitals to be more of a support ship then a striking ship.
The fleet-battle Ive been in lately is spammed with carriers and the support is mostly there to kill as many enemy fighters as possible. And I belive that is the wrong direction the fleet-battles is going.
Are you in the fleet battles on the side that brings hundreds of frigates and cruisers jumping through the gates? But thats alright right? I find it very amusing that the people that blob the most complain about a gang of 50.
Remove the frigate and cruiser blob, and the carrier "blob" would not be needed.
All Im saying is that in a gang of 50 there should be more like 5 capitals and rest BS and smaller, and not 20 capitals. If capitals would make blobs go away, fine, but unfortunately they do not.
So can we then say in a gang of 50 there should only be 5 battleships as well? Because if not then they will overpower the cruisers, and so forth and so on.
|
Blood Ghost
Occam's Razor Combine
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 22:19:00 -
[2457]
Edited by: Blood Ghost on 23/10/2007 22:18:56
Originally by: Veng3ance Please just keep the frontline carrier alive!
13 Regular drones allowed, but only 5 fighters.
Role Bonus 50% to Drone hitpoints and damage (Not effecting fighters)
Please please please.
See the problem we have now is people donÆt want this nerf so much, there willing to accept any change which is somehow not as bad.
Well no thanks, carrierÆs damage is fine atm, any nerf and IÆm gone
|
Jaabaa Prime
Dental Drilling Corporation
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 22:19:00 -
[2458]
Edited by: Jaabaa Prime on 23/10/2007 22:22:26 The idea is still BOLLOXS and will remain BOLLOXS,
even if you simply take SPs, ISK and time invested into account, it's still BOLLOXS.
After that investment, I think that you SHOULD be able to BBQ a battleship.
What CCP got wrong, was making sure that they can't get scrambled in EMPIRE, no bubbles, no 'dictors, no way.
Remove this ability (i.e. not being able to be warp scrambled without a bubble) otherwise it remains BOLLOXS.
So, Zulu, after so many pages, did you get the position of the players, the idea is BOLLOXS. --
|
Cadela Fria
Amarr Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 22:19:00 -
[2459]
Edited by: Cadela Fria on 23/10/2007 22:20:00
Originally by: Veng3ance Please just keep the frontline carrier alive!
13 Regular drones allowed, but only 5 fighters.
Role Bonus 50% to Drone hitpoints and damage (Not effecting fighters)
Please please please.
...The hell??? Not good enough! DO - NOT - WANT! No nerfing! -_-
|
wifi
Space Monkeys
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 22:20:00 -
[2460]
Originally by: Veng3ance Please just keep the frontline carrier alive!
13 Regular drones allowed, but only 5 fighters.
Role Bonus 50% to Drone hitpoints and damage (Not effecting fighters)
Please please please.
why accepting a nerft thats not needed ? carriers die when they are alone.
Its a fact !
1 Maulus +1 Bs = death carrier
1 Lachesis = death carryer it can keep it dampend and tackled till his friends come from the other side of the map
Moms are expensiv and still rather easy to kill. A fighter dies in seconds to concentrated fire, so do drones. Use 2-3 eagels to snipe of the fighters and drones and its not dammaging you anymore if your not stupid enough to get into smartbomb range.
Carrier and moms are NOT overpowered, they NEED support like lot of carrier and mom kills show. if they are alone, they die even true random encounters.
|
|
Veng3ance
Prophets Of a Damned Universe
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 22:20:00 -
[2461]
Edited by: Veng3ance on 23/10/2007 22:21:26
Originally by: Cadela Fria
Originally by: Veng3ance Please just keep the frontline carrier alive!
13 Regular drones allowed, but only 5 fighters.
Role Bonus 50% to Drone hitpoints and damage (Not effecting fighters)
Please please please.
...The hell??? Not good enough!
Oh comon! We need to compromise. You know they aren't giving us those fighters back.
Whoops and I meant whatever the carrier limit is. Not just 13 drones.
|
Rexthor Hammerfists
Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 22:20:00 -
[2462]
would like to know the devs opinions as to why carriers are iwin buttons? -
|
spidy 105
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 22:21:00 -
[2463]
Originally by: Jaabaa Prime Edited by: Jaabaa Prime on 23/10/2007 22:19:31 The idea is still BOLLOXS and will remain BOLLOXS,
even if you simple take SPs, ISK and time invested into account, it's still BOLLOXS.
After that investment, I think that you SHOULD be able to BBQ a battleship.
What CCP got wrong, was making sure that they can't get scrambled in EMPIRE, no bubbles, no 'dictors, no way.
Remove this ability (i.e. not being able to be warp scrambled without a bubble) remains BOLLOXS.
So, Zulu, after so many pages, did you get the position of the players, the idea is BOLLOXS.
If you're referring to carriers, they can be stopped with a simple tech 1 warp disruptor, but if its motherships i agree with you
|
Sathana
Caldari Murder-Death-Kill
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 22:21:00 -
[2464]
I spent over a year training carrier/mom skills(dont have mom yet tho) for this? Remember back when carriers were hugging pos's and CCP wanted to change them so they can actually be in battle? Well, all i have to say is that CCP is going in a backwards direction..that includes their subscriptions as well. I've been playing ever since 6/03..i think CCP should reconsider who to appease. A new base that may stay for more then a couple of months or the playerbase that has been here for years.
Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 bytes, ty. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Cortes |
Blood Ghost
Occam's Razor Combine
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 22:22:00 -
[2465]
Originally by: Veng3ance
Originally by: Cadela Fria
Originally by: Veng3ance Please just keep the frontline carrier alive!
13 Regular drones allowed, but only 5 fighters.
Role Bonus 50% to Drone hitpoints and damage (Not effecting fighters)
Please please please.
...The hell??? Not good enough!
Oh comon! We need to compromise. You know they aren't giving us those fighters back.
No compromise here. Theres nothing wrong with the slightly then higher DPS of a carrier. Triage module needs looking into though, a buff to get people to use it more maybe.
|
War Bear
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 22:22:00 -
[2466]
97 pages, climbing fast and no official "sorry guys, you're right, this is a stupid f'ing idea" ...
I hereby officially declare shenanigans.
Everything is funny with the Benny Hill theme song |
Wigglytuff
Vale Heavy Industries Molotov Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 22:23:00 -
[2467]
Originally by: Veng3ance Please just keep the frontline carrier alive!
13 Regular drones allowed, but only 5 fighters.
Role Bonus 50% to Drone hitpoints and damage (Not effecting fighters)
Please please please.
Yes nerf their specific role, while keeping them strong as anti everything-smaller-than-a-capital ships, which is their biggest problem...
And the fact that 5 fighters won't out DPS 13 heavy drones.
Atleast I know I'm making the right choice in working on BS skills in preparation for the Kronus, which I fully expect to get nerfed in some way because it's too damn awesome looking.
|
Veng3ance
Prophets Of a Damned Universe
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 22:24:00 -
[2468]
Ok fine, no one likes it!
No nerf! Rawr!
|
Kintaana
Minmatar Trogdor Burninators FOUNDATI0N
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 22:25:00 -
[2469]
Before starting this, CCP please keep in mind that a good many of the replies are non-cap pilots...
A) This is utterly absurd logic behind this possible nerf. Lets scale this down to a smaller example:
This is equivalent to nefing a Battleship pilot to only control half of his turrets while gangmates control the other half because they can 5 volley cruisers. The isk ratio is almost the same.
"we feel that capital ships are being used way too much as better-than-battleships-at-killing-stuff ships" This ship costs as much as EIGHT well fit battleships, it very well should be able to kill a battleship solo! You DESERVE to be incinerated in 0.2 seconds if youre going to go attacking a MS with a group of battelships with no capital rep or heavy logistics to back you up. Battleships are continuously being upgraded and made harder to kill while carriers continue to be stable with no upgrades, if anything carriers are too easy to kill with a dampening nano/sniping gang. People do not pay over half a bil to train for a capital, then another 2bil+ to fit it just to have a Carrier thats nice to use as a mobile refitting array, even moreso for a Mothership. The entire idea of a capital is that it should be an awe inspiring tool of mass destruction, while a mothership/carrier certainly has the option of being an oversized box of band-aids, if thats all they were used/wanted for then people would just save a ton of isk and fit logistics Dominix's with 100% faction gear. The entire idea of a Carrier is for it to carry a fleet of it's own, it's a command style ship both in and out of game, fighters worth the price of battlecruisers. That in itself should be enough to dictate it's role as a ship that you DO NOT WANT TO MESS WITH. As is the entire idea of a capital, part of the fun of having such a highly expensive non-disposable ship (battleships are disposable) is the power it wields which is very equal to it's immense cost. Also forcing these highly expensive drones into other's hands needs to attach a 100mil deposit to be taken out of their wallets when given control and have it be re-deposited when the fighters are unassigned, in most cases it's the capital's pilot funding this, not someone else who can be stupid and send them into a disco Domi without caring if they lose a fighter or not.
Capitals are already HIGHLY vulnerable to sensor dampening, you get a gang of 10 each fitting a damp and youve got a completely useless carrier, have a ship sit on top of you and itll still take you 5mins to lock them. Making not only their logistics useless but what little solo control they would have over their fighters. This happened a few days ago, had two carriers on a gate against a nano/sniping EW gang and the carriers while they had all their fighters there was little they could do with all the dampening etc, battleships popped in under a minute 1 after anothr before the carriers could even target them. Got 1 carrier out, lost the other. Dampening is their gaping hole of vulnerability no reason to make it even worse.
B) On the other hand, as was mentioned earlier: How does a gang as small as even 2-3 BS being able to kill a solo carrier balance them? IMO Carriers/MS are perfectly fine, if youre going to face a carrier/MS and dont bring cap support/hvy logistics to back you up you DESERVE to be atomized, any situation that warrants combat with a Carrier is a situation that needs heavy support, with a MS you want capital support. Dreads are already useless in 90% of situations, most only bring them out once a month if you dont include the mega-Alliances as they have much heavier pos stacking to deal with for the constant sov juggling.
The only reason I can think of for this uncalled for unbalancing would be the fact that there are more carriers in existence, which is inevitable as more characters get more SP and new buffs ship increase ratting/isk generation speed.
Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed dimensions of 400x120 pixels -Rauth Kivaro ([email protected]) |
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 22:25:00 -
[2470]
Originally by: Rexthor Hammerfists would like to know the devs opinions as to why carriers are iwin buttons?
Well, seems like it's because they've never actually flown them (Eris and the blog author).....
And no, I don't get the logic either.....
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
|
Cadela Fria
Amarr Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 22:25:00 -
[2471]
Originally by: Veng3ance Edited by: Veng3ance on 23/10/2007 22:21:26
Originally by: Cadela Fria
Originally by: Veng3ance Please just keep the frontline carrier alive!
13 Regular drones allowed, but only 5 fighters.
Role Bonus 50% to Drone hitpoints and damage (Not effecting fighters)
Please please please.
...The hell??? Not good enough!
Oh comon! We need to compromise. You know they aren't giving us those fighters back.
Whoops and I meant whatever the carrier limit is. Not just 13 drones.
Read my text: NO COMPROMISE
|
Khes
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 22:25:00 -
[2472]
Originally by: Dionisius Carriers are not support ships in the way CCP is nerfing them. [/quote
I can kind of agree to that. But I would personaly like them to become that.
|
Les Obvious
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 22:25:00 -
[2473]
Great , so a carrier cannot defend itself properly and already there easy to beat in a battle....
But CCP has to uphold their reputation to suck at stuff...
|
Law Enforcer
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 22:26:00 -
[2474]
CCP Gangleri > This is the first iteration.. just like the fighter change... and everything that is on Sisi.
it looks like the fighter change is going ahead as planned.
|
Capt Lothar
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 22:27:00 -
[2475]
hey guys, slow down. everytime i click refresh on my browser there is a new page to read. lol and for my comment... a wise man once said "If it ain't broke, Don't fix it"
|
Xune
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 22:28:00 -
[2476]
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 ?
|
Inflexible
Rytiri Lva
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 22:28:00 -
[2477]
Originally by: Rexthor Hammerfists would like to know the devs opinions as to why carriers are iwin buttons?
^^^^ this
|
Baun
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 22:29:00 -
[2478]
Originally by: Cadela Fria
Originally by: Veng3ance Edited by: Veng3ance on 23/10/2007 22:21:26
Originally by: Cadela Fria
Originally by: Veng3ance Please just keep the frontline carrier alive!
13 Regular drones allowed, but only 5 fighters.
Role Bonus 50% to Drone hitpoints and damage (Not effecting fighters)
Please please please.
...The hell??? Not good enough!
Oh comon! We need to compromise. You know they aren't giving us those fighters back.
Whoops and I meant whatever the carrier limit is. Not just 13 drones.
Read my text: NO COMPROMISE
QFT
I repeat: NO COMPROMISE
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Jaabaa Prime
Dental Drilling Corporation
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 22:29:00 -
[2479]
Originally by: spidy 105
Originally by: Jaabaa Prime Edited by: Jaabaa Prime on 23/10/2007 22:19:31 The idea is still BOLLOXS and will remain BOLLOXS,
even if you simple take SPs, ISK and time invested into account, it's still BOLLOXS.
After that investment, I think that you SHOULD be able to BBQ a battleship.
What CCP got wrong, was making sure that they can't get scrambled in EMPIRE, no bubbles, no 'dictors, no way.
Remove this ability (i.e. not being able to be warp scrambled without a bubble) remains BOLLOXS.
So, Zulu, after so many pages, did you get the position of the players, the idea is BOLLOXS.
If you're referring to carriers, they can be stopped with a simple tech 1 warp disruptor, but if its motherships i agree with you
This can only be directed against low sec MS owners, because no sane carrier pilot will engage in 0.0 without support.
Be real, drone lag ? you can still assign them all to pilots in the same grid, this can only be directed towards the newbs that fly them in low sec being invul to a scram.
Which really ****es off all the people on these pages that use their carriers in 0.0 in alliance warfare (read blobs/lag fest/CTD). --
|
zoe fox
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 22:30:00 -
[2480]
No better ways to stop me from flying those ships. they already have all the limitations that make them unusable alone. Adding that would make them completely useless. a carrier pilot would be changed into an npc looking at his gang mates, not even able to defend himself as this ship should allow him. What a fun ... besides these ships are meant to be deadly to a battleship. I dont think it's a problem. The amount of carrier kills there is shows by itself that they are already killable by a fair gang. They are not support ships, they are capital ships that can do support stuff as well and it's cool that way. I really hope it's not gonna happen.
Nico
|
|
Haakelen
Gallente United Forces Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 22:31:00 -
[2481]
Originally by: Baun
Originally by: Cadela Fria
Originally by: Veng3ance Edited by: Veng3ance on 23/10/2007 22:21:26
Originally by: Cadela Fria
Originally by: Veng3ance Please just keep the frontline carrier alive!
13 Regular drones allowed, but only 5 fighters.
Role Bonus 50% to Drone hitpoints and damage (Not effecting fighters)
Please please please.
...The hell??? Not good enough!
Oh comon! We need to compromise. You know they aren't giving us those fighters back.
Whoops and I meant whatever the carrier limit is. Not just 13 drones.
Read my text: NO COMPROMISE
QFT
I repeat: NO COMPROMISE
Solidarity. There is NOTHING WRONG WITH CARRIERS.
|
Kwint Sommer
Incoherent Inc Otaku Invasion
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 22:31:00 -
[2482]
Originally by: Haakelen
Originally by: Jovialmadness Edited by: Jovialmadness on 23/10/2007 21:59:06 i was thinking, maybe the real issue here is money. if they make a hello kitty online game out of a sweet fairly functional game, then they can attract thousands and thousands of other players that like that sort of drizzle. Losing a couple thousand accounts from old schoolers is nothing to the multi-thousands they might gain. This is all, of course, assuming we dont absolutely slander the company out of game because of their slow progression towards some form of bizarre ship equality that some feel is acceptable.
i find it amazing that people seem to think that:
1. a 50 million skill point character should not be as powerful as a 5 million skill point character and 2. a 30 billion isk ship should not be as powerful as a 60 million isk ship.
If i even get a wiff the devs are ACTUALLY attempting this route.
Say adios amigos!!
If only CCP realized how fickle and unreliable the 13-year old dip**** market is. Their core subscriber base, the kind of people who dedicate the time to training for capitals and conducting serious PvP operations, are the ones that make their game stand out.
Without it, your game is WoW in space. Entirely unremarkable and unimportant. Aspiring to fly battleships and capitals and joining an Alliance is what keeps people subscribed to your game when Level 4 missions are getting dull.
CCP's making massive mistakes. When their game is dead, everyone can look back on this and definitively state this is what caused it.
I'm inclined to agree, if this goes through CCP can kiss there 10 year plan good bye, well I guess they already are by destroying the integrity of their game but I mean to imply that between it's newfound blandness and the consistent slandering of it by all of its old players EVE will not survive to see 10 years. The phrase pulling an EVE will, however, enter the MMO lexicon, less anyone forget what happens when you betray both your player base and the integrity of your game.
That said, maybe there was some unfortunate wording and a big coincidence and the devs are coming to their senses and this will all blow over. The imminent dev blog should tell us which.
Sig removed. Please keep sigs to 400x120 pixels and 24000 bytes in size or less. -Kaemonn |
Myal Terego
Seraphin Technologies Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 22:31:00 -
[2483]
Quote: We are still monitoring this thread and reading the ideas that come up in it. We will, as previously stated, keep you up to date on any kind of progress.
A noob that can't even fly a carrier/MS decides if its overpowered or not???? Get your character in a carrier or even an MS and come to 0.0. There you will see how "overpowered" these ships are. I bet you won't survive a single week in your "sologankmobile".
|
0R1NOCO
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 22:33:00 -
[2484]
WTB: The ships the devs are confusing with carriers. Seriously.
|
Cadela Fria
Amarr Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 22:34:00 -
[2485]
Originally by: Myal Terego
Quote: We are still monitoring this thread and reading the ideas that come up in it. We will, as previously stated, keep you up to date on any kind of progress.
A noob that can't even fly a carrier/MS decides if its overpowered or not???? Get your character in a carrier or even an MS and come to 0.0. There you will see how "overpowered" these ships are. I bet you won't survive a single week in your "sologankmobile".
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.
|
Manfred Sideous
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 22:34:00 -
[2486]
|
Icome4u
Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 22:35:00 -
[2487]
Originally by: 0R1NOCO WTB: The ships the devs are confusing with carriers. Seriously.
^^THAT!
|
JonVe
Gallente FireTech Pure.
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 22:35:00 -
[2488]
Originally by: Cadela Fria
Originally by: Myal Terego
Quote: We are still monitoring this thread and reading the ideas that come up in it. We will, as previously stated, keep you up to date on any kind of progress.
A noob that can't even fly a carrier/MS decides if its overpowered or not???? Get your character in a carrier or even an MS and come to 0.0. There you will see how "overpowered" these ships are. I bet you won't survive a single week in your "sologankmobile".
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.
|
Xune
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 22:36:00 -
[2489]
Originally by: JonVe
Originally by: Cadela Fria
Originally by: Myal Terego
Quote: We are still monitoring this thread and reading the ideas that come up in it. We will, as previously stated, keep you up to date on any kind of progress.
A noob that can't even fly a carrier/MS decides if its overpowered or not???? Get your character in a carrier or even an MS and come to 0.0. There you will see how "overpowered" these ships are. I bet you won't survive a single week in your "sologankmobile".
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 !
|
Ztrain
Evolution Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 22:36:00 -
[2490]
Originally by: Kwint Sommer The phrase pulling an EVE will, however, enter the MMO lexicon, less anyone forget what happens when you betray both your player base and the integrity of your game.
I like I like! It shall be done.
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 - 2007.10.23 22:42:00 -
[2491]
Originally by: CCP Abathur
Bear in mind that the test server is just that - a test server.
I wish you guys at CCP would "bear in mind" that people may be looking at changes you make very closely in light of the ignorance CCP has displayed with this proposal and their replies in this thread. But obviously you have no idea at all what your customers are thinking, or you just don't care as long as they pay their subscription (or until the gourmet sandwiches run out perhaps).
"...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) |
Upsy Daisy
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 22:43:00 -
[2492]
Originally by: Arokan Manturi
Originally by: Bael Lightstorm I'm not a carrier pilot but in the time I've been playing this game I could have decided to spend my all my time and ISK going in that direction. If I had, I would be really hacked off now as all that time and investment could potentially be wasted. While this nerf may be justified from a balancing point of view (i'm not entirely convinced so far), it is a nerf that really hurts medium aged characters, especially those who have been very focused in their choice of skills or who are just about to become 'carrier ready'.
I think this thread shows the general feeling of the playerbase well enough... hopefully we will see a rethink of this 'idea'.
How will it hurt u alot? U trained drone skills for the carrier, cant they be used for other purposes? U trained bs 5, cant that be used for other purposes? U trained jump drive skills, cant that be used for other purposes?
I like this... So they guys sole idea was to get a carrier, you say thats ok, you cant get a carrier that works but you can fly a bs nicely... You miss the point, they were just skills to "have to get" on the way .. So now that person is flying a ship they don't want to fly just becasue they had to train those skills... That is not a valid argument.
The real argument is that the person is training for something that is skill intensive and that choice is being nerfed.
If CCP just came out and said .. "guys, we are nerfing the carrier becuase we need it to be inline with the drone changes, and TBH we don;t really fly these things but people seem to thing they are overpowered"...
Fine... No worries, we cancel the cyno alt accounts, we retrain for a smaller ship that isn't so fragile and we carry on. But No, They d*ck us around and TBH this is the nerf that broke the camels back.. 1 too many... It is tiring... That is why so many people have already put their account into cancelled mode... Too much, 1 too many nerf.
|
Ztrain
Evolution Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 22:45:00 -
[2493]
Originally by: JonVe Edited by: JonVe on 23/10/2007 22:42:23
Originally by: Ztrain
Originally by: Kwint Sommer The phrase pulling an EVE will, however, enter the MMO lexicon, less anyone forget what happens when you betray both your player base and the integrity of your game.
I like I like! It shall be done.
Z
I'm sorry, but that is taken by Pulling a Smedley.
Point.
Raise one: Being EVE'd is Pulling a Smedley 2.0
Z CCP (Producers of Slide Show Online) takin the fun out of EVE, one patch at a time. |
Haakelen
Gallente United Forces Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 22:47:00 -
[2494]
Originally by: Ztrain
Originally by: JonVe Edited by: JonVe on 23/10/2007 22:42:23
Originally by: Ztrain
Originally by: Kwint Sommer The phrase pulling an EVE will, however, enter the MMO lexicon, less anyone forget what happens when you betray both your player base and the integrity of your game.
I like I like! It shall be done.
Z
I'm sorry, but that is taken by Pulling a Smedley.
Point.
Raise one: Being EVE'd is Pulling a Smedley 2.0
Z
Your sig has so much relevance this weekend, it's not even funny.
|
Gridwalker
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 22:47:00 -
[2495]
Originally by: Ztrain
Originally by: JonVe Edited by: JonVe on 23/10/2007 22:42:23
Originally by: Ztrain
Originally by: Kwint Sommer The phrase pulling an EVE will, however, enter the MMO lexicon, less anyone forget what happens when you betray both your player base and the integrity of your game.
I like I like! It shall be done.
Z
I'm sorry, but that is taken by Pulling a Smedley.
Point.
Raise one: Being EVE'd is Pulling a Smedley 2.0
Z
I think we should name it after the messenger: "I've been Zuluparked!" ;-)
-Grid
|
Devoras2
Amarr KIA Corp KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 22:49:00 -
[2496]
Had enough myself and made my blood boil over!
The ONLY reason why CCP is doing what they are doing is cause off the same issue that affects us all:
LAG!
The ufortunate part is that CCP is unable and unwilling to do squat about it, so they move over to the next ting to nerf: Carrier/Moms! Carriers and Mom`s are becoming the direct victim of a heavily depended commercialized CCP with the unability to upgrade their hardware to coup with the lag. EVE is constantly getting new players, and the servers can barely keep up with the anmmount. But hey, CCP cant say "no, you cant play cause our server cant handle it!" They get more subscribers each day, and zip zero effort to do ANYTHING with their hardware.
In the start the chang... the NERF was mentioned as a thought, an idea to be aired out for opinions. After close to 100 pages of absolute NO, and with solid arguments they put the changes to sisi after all. Now what does that tell us about TRUST and player understanding?? Do you think about your d*mn greedy pockets first CCP, or do you actually care about the game for the benefit for the whole community? In the end old players will just end up quiting the game, and we`ll have a EVE server "reset" with all them new players coming. Hence the problem solved with the lag and server issue! Just how cyncial can you guys be!?
As Viqer Fell mentioned; send Zulu back to QA where he clearly belongs, cause he doesnt know F*CK what he is talking about!
It's great being Amarr, aint it?
|
Arctur Gestator
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 22:50:00 -
[2497]
22:44:59 Hint You don't have enough bandwidth to launch Firbolg. You need 0.0 Mbit/s but Firbolg requires 25.0 Mbit/s.
I wanted to lauch 6th firbolg ( carrier lvl5 reached )
So nerf is alive in singularity _________________________
Adapt or STFU |
Jaabaa Prime
Dental Drilling Corporation
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 22:50:00 -
[2498]
100 pages still doesn't say that this is wrong ?
Did someone deliver some "good stuff" to the devs and they didn't notice the uproar yet ? --
|
Cadela Fria
Amarr Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 22:51:00 -
[2499]
Edited by: Cadela Fria on 23/10/2007 22:51:13 Obviously it says something...it depends on if people are willing to listen.
|
Grimster
Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 22:51:00 -
[2500]
Finding the all but total lack of a real response to this outstanding.
Wondering what the No1 topic of FanFest is gonna be?
|
|
reaping miner
Gallente Viper Squad Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 22:51:00 -
[2501]
Edited by: reaping miner on 23/10/2007 22:51:58 Leave drones alone if u dont like them.: FIT A F****NG SMARTBOMB.
it is just a stupid nerf,. excuse me, stupid monster nerf. wrong way CCP.
greets reap
|
Cadela Fria
Amarr Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 22:51:00 -
[2502]
Edited by: Cadela Fria on 23/10/2007 22:51:47 Precisely! *points above*
|
Mundem Pashdale
Serenity Prime Praesidium Libertatis
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 22:51:00 -
[2503]
CCP need to fix both drone interfaceing (the way in which a player can control his drones) and also improve logistics modules befor introducing this change. CCP, please stop and think!
|
Gridwalker
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 22:52:00 -
[2504]
Originally by: Grimster Finding the all but total lack of a real response to this outstanding.
Wondering what the No1 topic of FanFest is gonna be?
Ambulation? ;-)
-Grid
|
Cadela Fria
Amarr Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 22:52:00 -
[2505]
Edited by: Cadela Fria on 23/10/2007 22:52:33 Ambulation yeah :P
|
Xune
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 22:52:00 -
[2506]
Edited by: Xune on 23/10/2007 22:53:29
Originally by: Arctur Gestator 22:44:59 Hint You don't have enough bandwidth to launch Firbolg. You need 0.0 Mbit/s but Firbolg requires 25.0 Mbit/s.
I wanted to lauch 6th firbolg ( carrier lvl5 reached )
So nerf is alive in singularity
Slowly i get frustrated is anyone actualy LISTENING to what i say ? its not the bandwith its already hardcapped ! you cant even launce more warriors then you got Droneskill and drone modules active ! read the damm post i made after testing for an hour and proving that CCP Abathur lied to us
LINK
|
Grath Telkin
Amarr STK Scientific Black-Out
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 22:53:00 -
[2507]
Originally by: Mundem Pashdale CCP need to fix both drone interfaceing (the way in which a player can control his drones) and also improve logistics modules befor introducing this change. CCP, please stop and think!
they are currently all thinking....about where to apply next when this company goes bankrupt
|
Hysidee
Black Avatar
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 22:53:00 -
[2508]
they said a new blog would be up soon, but thats gonna be a CCP SoonÖ just like the amarr boost....
|
Cadela Fria
Amarr Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 22:53:00 -
[2509]
*tries out for page 100*
|
Haakelen
Gallente United Forces Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 22:53:00 -
[2510]
Originally by: Grimster Finding the all but total lack of a real response to this outstanding.
Wondering what the No1 topic of FanFest is gonna be?
Don't you have to have... fans to have a fanfest?
|
|
Kebabski
Minmatar Yiotul Fighters Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 22:53:00 -
[2511]
Beam me up scotty, zulu has gone crazy. Nah seriously, this is just beyond words
|
Flaming Lemming
Caldari Puppeteer Press
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 22:53:00 -
[2512]
Originally by: Grimster Wondering what the No1 topic of FanFest is gonna be?
"Which way to the bree?"
(Sorry, trying to lighten things up a bit, in light of this pathetic nerf.) No such thing as bad press! |
j99323188
Minmatar Slacker Industries Exuro Mortis
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 22:53:00 -
[2513]
Originally by: Pallidum Treponema I really hope this is a joke. SERIOUSLY, I hope this is a joke.
Many players in the community are aware of the power of capital ships, not to mention that of supercapitals. This makes them a worthwhile goal to pursue, and once they reach the level of skills required to fly them, and acquire the funds to purchase or build one, it's a huge accomplishment. Even more so with the construction of a supercapital such as a mothership or titan.
Capital ships are already very vulnerable considering their costs, yet their firepower doesn't increase nearly as much as the cost. As an example, a carrier costs about 1.5 billion fully fitted, but its firepower, using today's numbers, is about 1000 DPS, equivalent to that of a short range battleship. Its strengths its stronger tank and the ability to project this firepower over a longer distance. This for a cost that is ten times that of the battleship.
It's also a fact that carriers are very easy to kill. This has been proven time after time as lone carriers get caught and are unable to defend themselves against even moderately sized gangs.
Now, motherships are even bigger and more costly. The ability to field upwards of 20 fighters is rather significant. However, this is still only the firepower of two to three short range battleships, to the cost of a hundred times of said battleship. If you include the cost of modules for a mothership, the cost is 200 times that of the battleship. And, once again, a mothership is not an invulnerable behemoth. This link shows that almost a dozen motherships have died since August 1st, most of them to gangs that didn't have any capital support whatsoever.
Even despite the vulnerability of these capital ships, many players are training for these vessels, or gathering ISK to buy one, for the simple reason that they are big accomplishments. Electronic-Ego-Boosters, if you wish.
Now, by nerfing them to the level where they individually have less firepower than many BATTLECRUISERS, you are also reducing a LOT of the incentive of having said ships. Carriers and motherships will no longer be able to perform in any offensive role, but will be reduced to purely defensive ships.
I predict that if this change goes through, a LOT of the fun of fighting with or against carriers will be gone. Using my own alliance as an example, we are using our capitals in a very offensive role. This means that we take full advantage of the firepower they provide us. This ALSO means that we take risks with these ships, which may have significant consequences. The loss of an MC as well as an ISS mothership during our battles in 49-U is a perfect example of this. By using our motherships agressively, we gain advantages, but we also provide the enemies with means to win major victories. I doubt anyone in IAC will deny that killing not one but two Alliance motherships in the same system was a huge victory for them.
If this change goes through, this will no longer happen. There will be absolutely no reason to forward-deploy motherships or carriers anymore. We will instead go back to the tactic of POS hugging, so much more viable with the introduction of faction towers, where carriers and motherships will sit right on top of a tower and simply delegate fighters while spidertanking each others. There will be no epic battles where capitals and supercapitals charge in and save the day, or go down in a blaze of glory.
And, there will be complaints about the amount of capitals that are sitting invulnerable at towers and just delegating fighters, and no one can do a thing to kill them.
well put good sir i agree totally |
Ztrain
Evolution Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 22:54:00 -
[2514]
Originally by: Haakelen Your sig has so much relevance this weekend, it's not even funny.
I have released games that are available on PC and in Arcades. My RL name scrolls by on those annoying put money in me arcade machines of yester year. I know a little about game design which is why I laugh so much sinse Revelations 2 about how crappy CCP is.
I'd submit my resume to CCP for senior game designer position. Only problem is most of the current staff would be reassigned to janitor duty. There's no way you could pay me to move to Iceland so development would be moved to the US and the incompetent would be replaced with competent coders that I have worked with in the past. The only thing that I'd be interested in keeping from current development team are the artists. The rest can be purged.
Z CCP (Producers of Slide Show Online) takin the fun out of EVE, one patch at a time. |
Jaabaa Prime
Dental Drilling Corporation
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 22:54:00 -
[2515]
Edited by: Jaabaa Prime on 23/10/2007 22:54:16
Originally by: Gridwalker
Originally by: Grimster Finding the all but total lack of a real response to this outstanding.
Wondering what the No1 topic of FanFest is gonna be?
Ambulation? ;-)
-Grid
LOL Grid, that is going to be topic number 1, how could we forget. --
|
Cadela Fria
Amarr Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 22:54:00 -
[2516]
Originally by: Xune Edited by: Xune on 23/10/2007 22:53:29
Originally by: Arctur Gestator 22:44:59 Hint You don't have enough bandwidth to launch Firbolg. You need 0.0 Mbit/s but Firbolg requires 25.0 Mbit/s.
I wanted to lauch 6th firbolg ( carrier lvl5 reached )
So nerf is alive in singularity
Slowly i get frustrated is anyone actualy LISTENING to what i say ? its not the bandwith its already hardcapped ! you cant even launce more warriors then you got Droneskill and drone modules active ! read the damm post i made after testing for an hour and proving that CCP Abathur lied to us
LINK
THIS ^^
|
Tressin Khiyne
The Tal'Shiar
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 22:54:00 -
[2517]
Originally by: Haakelen
Originally by: Baun
Originally by: Cadela Fria
Originally by: Veng3ance Edited by: Veng3ance on 23/10/2007 22:21:26
Originally by: Cadela Fria
Originally by: Veng3ance Please just keep the frontline carrier alive!
13 Regular drones allowed, but only 5 fighters.
Role Bonus 50% to Drone hitpoints and damage (Not effecting fighters)
Please please please.
...The hell??? Not good enough!
Oh comon! We need to compromise. You know they aren't giving us those fighters back.
Whoops and I meant whatever the carrier limit is. Not just 13 drones.
Read my text: NO COMPROMISE
QFT
I repeat: NO COMPROMISE
Solidarity. There is NOTHING WRONG WITH CARRIERS.
<~~~ Command Ship Hopeful
I say: LEAVE CARRIERS ALONE -- MAKE BIGGER GUNS! --
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; Those who understand binary, and those who don't. |
Devoras2
Amarr KIA Corp KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 22:55:00 -
[2518]
Originally by: j99323188
Originally by: Pallidum Treponema I really hope this is a joke. SERIOUSLY, I hope this is a joke.
Many players in the community are aware of the power of capital ships, not to mention that of supercapitals. This makes them a worthwhile goal to pursue, and once they reach the level of skills required to fly them, and acquire the funds to purchase or build one, it's a huge accomplishment. Even more so with the construction of a supercapital such as a mothership or titan.
Capital ships are already very vulnerable considering their costs, yet their firepower doesn't increase nearly as much as the cost. As an example, a carrier costs about 1.5 billion fully fitted, but its firepower, using today's numbers, is about 1000 DPS, equivalent to that of a short range battleship. Its strengths its stronger tank and the ability to project this firepower over a longer distance. This for a cost that is ten times that of the battleship.
It's also a fact that carriers are very easy to kill. This has been proven time after time as lone carriers get caught and are unable to defend themselves against even moderately sized gangs.
Now, motherships are even bigger and more costly. The ability to field upwards of 20 fighters is rather significant. However, this is still only the firepower of two to three short range battleships, to the cost of a hundred times of said battleship. If you include the cost of modules for a mothership, the cost is 200 times that of the battleship. And, once again, a mothership is not an invulnerable behemoth. This link shows that almost a dozen motherships have died since August 1st, most of them to gangs that didn't have any capital support whatsoever.
Even despite the vulnerability of these capital ships, many players are training for these vessels, or gathering ISK to buy one, for the simple reason that they are big accomplishments. Electronic-Ego-Boosters, if you wish.
Now, by nerfing them to the level where they individually have less firepower than many BATTLECRUISERS, you are also reducing a LOT of the incentive of having said ships. Carriers and motherships will no longer be able to perform in any offensive role, but will be reduced to purely defensive ships.
I predict that if this change goes through, a LOT of the fun of fighting with or against carriers will be gone. Using my own alliance as an example, we are using our capitals in a very offensive role. This means that we take full advantage of the firepower they provide us. This ALSO means that we take risks with these ships, which may have significant consequences. The loss of an MC as well as an ISS mothership during our battles in 49-U is a perfect example of this. By using our motherships agressively, we gain advantages, but we also provide the enemies with means to win major victories. I doubt anyone in IAC will deny that killing not one but two Alliance motherships in the same system was a huge victory for them.
If this change goes through, this will no longer happen. There will be absolutely no reason to forward-deploy motherships or carriers anymore. We will instead go back to the tactic of POS hugging, so much more viable with the introduction of faction towers, where carriers and motherships will sit right on top of a tower and simply delegate fighters while spidertanking each others. There will be no epic battles where capitals and supercapitals charge in and save the day, or go down in a blaze of glory.
And, there will be complaints about the amount of capitals that are sitting invulnerable at towers and just delegating fighters, and no one can do a thing to kill them.
well put good sir i agree totally
He is actually a she
It's great being Amarr, aint it?
|
Cadela Fria
Amarr Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 22:55:00 -
[2519]
At this point I am actively looking for another game to play, while anxiously awaiting an answer.
|
Blood Ghost
Occam's Razor Combine
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 23:03:00 -
[2520]
Edited by: Blood Ghost on 23/10/2007 23:03:16 Easily ninjas post 3000 <.<
Edit: Drat....
|
|
Grath Telkin
Amarr STK Scientific Black-Out
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 23:03:00 -
[2521]
if they are listening....TELL US SOMETHING
|
lofty29
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 23:03:00 -
[2522]
3000 posts. Epic. ---
Latest Video : FAT- Camp |
Athena Volo
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 23:03:00 -
[2523]
My small corp is slowly working up the courage and resolve to go play in low-sec. One of the main draws is so we can use a carrier. Its big, its expensive, it screams out 'LOOK AT ME! I'M A TARGET!'.
With that in mind, my 2 biggest concern about carriers was: 'Is it really worth the isk in equipment, skills, and more importantly time to train all those blasted skills up to be effective?' and 'Man, this 1,000,000,000 isk ship looks fragile, and painful to loose.'
I decided it might be worth it, and begin training the skills. Advance Spaceship Command V check. Battleship V check. Jumpdrive Operation V Check. Capital Ships IV check. Now i've been saving isk for fighters, adv. drone interfacing, capital ______ systems, the carrier skill, the 2 other jump dive skills etc etc etc. Then this Dev Blog show up. Then the changes appear on the test server. And my resolve and goal to get a carrier just got podded with no clone to back it up.
So now what? Is a carrier still worth is?
For gang boosting, it is more time and cost effective to use a T1 Battlecruiser. For logistics, the new Jump Freighters seem to be superior. For protection, a Dominix will be more flexible, and probably do more damage. A Logistics cruiser can repair a lot of damage. at a fraction of the cost in time and isk. For refitting of corp mates, an Iteron IV with a small POS in it would probably work.
My main draw of a carrier is/was its flexibility. You need gang boosting? No problem, you need support? got it. Logistics? painful but can do. A bit of power projection, and a magnet for missiles and enemy fire? Jumping into the fray. Look at all the cool 'X' things orbiting my neat ship! Fun!
Or not.
Now, with these changes, a carrier can still do many of these roles, but with the added complexity of having to assign very expensive fighters to people in order to project the same force. What happens if the person crashes/blows up/docks with your fighters still assigned? Do they come back? Say I CTD, what happens to the assigned fighters? Doubt, Doubt and more doubt.
Sure it can still repair and haul and do other such things, but combat is a rather large part of EVE, and fun too. I think it is mean to take a ship that -could- fight from the get go, and decide after a long while, nah it is supposed to be logistics only. Double mean with how long it takes to train all the skills for it.
Build 27121 to 27912 addresses REVELATIONS Patch Notes, Features, Fixes and Improvements
Quote: Fighter production and research times have been cut in half. Go out and shoot each other more.
I want to, you wanted me to a while back. Now you don't want me to shoot things with carriers?
Please make up your mind. I really, really hope you decide not to do this terrible thing.
|
ALPHA12125
Gallente 0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 23:04:00 -
[2524]
Edited by: ALPHA12125 on 23/10/2007 23:04:17 post 3000 try 2
damn lots of forum *****s today
|
Ztrain
Evolution Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 23:04:00 -
[2525]
Originally by: Robet Katrix post 3000~!~~~~!!!!
GET OWNED
Bastard!!!! Dev hax I tell you!!!!
Z CCP (Producers of Slide Show Online) takin the fun out of EVE, one patch at a time. |
Vayna Miychovich
NED-Clan R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 23:04:00 -
[2526]
Originally by: Coolgamer Edited by: Coolgamer on 21/10/2007 16:24:17 Hey if you want to work on some change for carriers user here are some very good ideas
i'll link them to you since seem most of them just go to oblivion, instead of those stupid "omg i got an idea i'll nerf the game and ruin your fun"
example 1 : give ability to make shortcuts better : shortcuts for drones like using shortcuts for controlling DRONES, omg this is an idea interesting !
example 2 : have some DECENT drone menu, and not the one in overview thta is damn laggy thanks to database when you carrer carries over 500 drones in multiple folders.
like : i simply love the following one : http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=422990
one of my favorite oldest (the stacking thing) : http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=9431 yes 4 years we wait for a BETTER DRONE MANAGEMENT system
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=440979 http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=279072 http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=497025
Some goods ideas from Aeon also : http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=494448
example 3 : About bumping (yes bumping super cap and cap is silly and even though last patch, game mechanics dont reflect what would be reality) : funny one : http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=490326 realistic one : http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=479182 (in a space opera when a small ship rush and crash on a large one, expect the small ship to die, the large one unharmed) Basically a bumped ship should not be stopped if it's size larger than the ship bumping him
example 4 : well your try now, use your brain, but NOT A DAMN NERF !!
you have many ideas there, all without any devs reply, take a coffee and read them instead thinking or nerfing the game that cost your brain nothing to do.
What he said. Focus on real issues instead of searching for problems. Or join the capital battles in the South and see for yourself how vulnerable these ships are. Capitals are an ISK sink in current days warfare.
-------------------------------------------------- RISE Above and Conquer
|
Grimster
Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 23:04:00 -
[2527]
Originally by: ALPHA12125 post 3000 try 2
Welcome to 3005
|
Hysidee
Black Avatar
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 23:05:00 -
[2528]
Originally by: Icome4u In 1 year everyone will be in dreads. Lets have gang mates control the dread guns like they control POS guns! The coding is pretty much ready!
2 theories: You are looking to be hired by ccp for this nerf, i men great idea to reduce lag or You have inside info on the next big step in "balancing" capital ships
Does this mean a titan will need a support fleet worshipping (orbitting) around it to gain enough power to let a DD off? (have an image of worshippers from Black and White now in my head)
|
JonVe
Gallente FireTech Pure.
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 23:05:00 -
[2529]
2,999 is a far cooler number
|
Clamn8er
Refuge of the Damned
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 23:05:00 -
[2530]
Originally by: The Economist 48 hours, 80 pages and over 2300 posts detailing every reason under the sun why you should leave well alone (and even providing some interesting ideas to look at if you really want to fiddle with some content) and still no apology, no retraction and not even so much as a constructive comment from anyone at CCP; I'm getting worried.
NOW IT'S 100 PAGES AND STILL NO RESPONSE, STILL NO RETRACTION, STILL NO APOLOGY AND STILL NO ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE MASSIVE DATABASE OF CONSTRUCTIVE COMMENTS ACCUMULATED HERE.
WORRIED? I'M F****** FURIOUS.
|
|
Helison
Gallente Times of Ancar Pure.
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 23:06:00 -
[2531]
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.
|
Ztrain
Evolution Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 23:07:00 -
[2532]
Edited by: Ztrain on 23/10/2007 23:11:44
Originally by: Hysidee Does this mean a titan will need a support fleet worshipping (orbitting) around it to gain enough power to let a DD off? (have an image of worshippers from Black and White now in my head)
Hallowed are the Ori.....
Edit: JUST IN!!! Reason why the dev's haven't been around to post is because the CFO noticed drop in subscriptions over the last hour. Went over to the head developer and said WTF Yo!!! To which they said, but we already spent the last month coding it this way and for us to have to change it would push back the Rev 3 deployment.
To which a flurry of throttlings to the ears and face were dispensed. They are now fleeing the building with ambulances arriving at the scene at the moment.
Z CCP (Producers of Slide Show Online) takin the fun out of EVE, one patch at a time. |
Kwint Sommer
Incoherent Inc Otaku Invasion
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 23:07:00 -
[2533]
Originally by: lofty29 Page 100, still no response. Yey!
There were actually a few dev posts in the thread. Though they were all either indignant or kindly asking us to hold off on the effigy burning until after the supposedly imminent dev blog. None contained what I would term a "response" more just one dev noticed we existed, told us to simmer down and then wondered away.
Devs, if you really are reading this look at several of my earlier posts for alternatives to the planned changes.
Sig removed. Please keep sigs to 400x120 pixels and 24000 bytes in size or less. -Kaemonn |
Icome4u
Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 23:08:00 -
[2534]
Originally by: Hysidee
Originally by: Icome4u In 1 year everyone will be in dreads. Lets have gang mates control the dread guns like they control POS guns! The coding is pretty much ready!
2 theories: You are looking to be hired by ccp for this nerf, i men great idea to reduce lag or You have inside info on the next big step in "balancing" capital ships
Does this mean a titan will need a support fleet worshipping (orbitting) around it to gain enough power to let a DD off? (have an image of worshippers from Black and White now in my head)
Titans next balance is quite simple (we don't work hard at CCP m'kay). You need +100 people in gang to be able to DD.
|
Kebabski
Minmatar Yiotul Fighters Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 23:08:00 -
[2535]
Originally by: Ztrain
Originally by: Hysidee Does this mean a titan will need a support fleet worshipping (orbitting) around it to gain enough power to let a DD off? (have an image of worshippers from Black and White now in my head)
Hallowed are the Ori.....
Z
|
Stradivarious
Minmatar Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 23:09:00 -
[2536]
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.
Not good enough
Subscription Status: Active Cancellation Pending Expires: 27. October 2007 Total Charges Made: 51
First charge: 2003-07-17 Been paying continously since then.
The other 3 accounts are identical except for starting dates. Tired of being lied to.... Fix it or goodbye.
Sure, bring a knife to a gunfight. |
sweetheart
Black Reign
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 23:09:00 -
[2537]
Edited by: sweetheart on 23/10/2007 23:13:35 People read the Ship Description , if they like the sounds of it , they train it up , as Capitals take many skills to be good , atleast 9 months goes into training a good Carrier pilot , given that you have the base skills already . You expect then to be able to fly that ship in the description , not have it totally changed , or you wouldn't have ever bothered and wasted time and isk doing so . Capitals are meant to be powerfull , hence the name and price and skills and training involved , and Supercaps aint called super for nothing .. This is a total missleading rip off if this nerf goes ahead !!!
Subscription Status: Active Cancellation Pending Expires: 28. October 2007 Total Charges Made: 43
First charge: 2004-04-30 Been paying continously since then.
.............................................. To Win is Everything
|
Reptzo
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 23:09:00 -
[2538]
Originally by: Ztrain
Originally by: Hysidee Does this mean a titan will need a support fleet worshipping (orbitting) around it to gain enough power to let a DD off? (have an image of worshippers from Black and White now in my head)
Hallowed are the Ori.....
Z
LOL
LOL
|
Robet Katrix
Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 23:10:00 -
[2539]
Originally by: Kwint Sommer
Originally by: lofty29 Page 100, still no response. Yey!
There were actually a few dev posts in the thread. Though they were all either indignant or kindly asking us to hold off on the effigy burning until after the supposedly imminent dev blog. None contained what I would term a "response" more just one dev noticed we existed, told us to simmer down and then wondered away.
Devs, if you really are reading this look at several of my earlier posts for alternatives to the planned changes.
and you must not forget eris telling us to go **** ourselves cause we are BIASED apparently.
especially after her stint on eve-tv showed us just how little she knows about this game
|
Mundem Pashdale
Serenity Prime Praesidium Libertatis
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 23:11:00 -
[2540]
Originally by: Kwint Sommer
There were actually a few dev posts in the thread. Though they were all either indignant or kindly asking us to hold off on the effigy burning until after the supposedly imminent dev blog. None contained what I would term a "response" more just one dev noticed we existed, told us to simmer down and then wondered away.
Devs, if you really are reading this look at several of my earlier posts for alternatives to the planned changes.
Simmer down, I like it. You'd think after such a BIG response, someone might stay up late and try to stop people closing accounts? CCP cares for us. Remember that
|
|
Reptzo
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 23:11:00 -
[2541]
Originally by: Robet Katrix
Originally by: Kwint Sommer
Originally by: lofty29 Page 100, still no response. Yey!
There were actually a few dev posts in the thread. Though they were all either indignant or kindly asking us to hold off on the effigy burning until after the supposedly imminent dev blog. None contained what I would term a "response" more just one dev noticed we existed, told us to simmer down and then wondered away.
Devs, if you really are reading this look at several of my earlier posts for alternatives to the planned changes.
and you must not forget eris telling us to go **** ourselves cause we are BIASED apparently.
especially after her stint on eve-tv showed us just how little she knows about this game
For those of us that don't know, what happened on eve-tv????? DO TELL
|
JonVe
Gallente FireTech Pure.
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 23:12:00 -
[2542]
Originally by: Robet Katrix
Originally by: Kwint Sommer
Originally by: lofty29 Page 100, still no response. Yey!
There were actually a few dev posts in the thread. Though they were all either indignant or kindly asking us to hold off on the effigy burning until after the supposedly imminent dev blog. None contained what I would term a "response" more just one dev noticed we existed, told us to simmer down and then wondered away.
Devs, if you really are reading this look at several of my earlier posts for alternatives to the planned changes.
and you must not forget eris telling us to go **** ourselves cause we are BIASED apparently.
especially after her stint on eve-tv showed us just how little she knows about this game
What did she do there?
|
Dachtor
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 23:12:00 -
[2543]
Its On Digg now...Make it popular
Digg.com link to Eve story
|
Tressin Khiyne
The Tal'Shiar
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 23:12:00 -
[2544]
Originally by: Cadela Fria Edited by: Cadela Fria on 23/10/2007 22:58:58 Edited by: Cadela Fria on 23/10/2007 22:56:48 OMG w00t!! \o/ First on page 100 ^_^
----- Also since I have achieved this epic position (sounds sexual doesn't it? :P), I hereby demand that this infuriating idea, along with it's preliminary introduction with Bandwidth, is completely and utterly abolished.
kthx! Master of Page 100!
^^LOL!!!^^
HERE HERE!!! --
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; Those who understand binary, and those who don't. |
ThisAlt IsUseless
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 23:13:00 -
[2545]
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.
|
Yawgmoth
Amarr Solar Storm Sev3rance
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 23:14:00 -
[2546]
Edited by: Yawgmoth on 23/10/2007 23:14:01
Originally by: Andreas Kallesoee If this change goes through in any shape or form that even smells of a nerf for my carrier and with pirat of the burning sea comming out in january i think i will have to take my monthly supscrition fees up for a seriouse reconsideration as i did not train for around a year and spend QUITE a few billion isk on going all over the place in my carrier to just have it pulled from under me and have it turned into a bad dominix with a bigger dronebay and a better tank but no where near the same posibilitys to run away.
This! I also did not train BS V, and all those stupid ancillary skills to fly a glorified repair ship. The thing I liked about carriers were you could do the logistics thing if you wanted, or you could have a front line carrier. You could have a support carrier, or a combat carrier, or somewhere in between. A carrier is simply not a wtfpwn mobile as it stands. Too many things can happen to a carrier. It cannot do enough damage to kill a bs in .2 seconds like the dev guy claimed, in fact fighters seem to have a little trouble hitting even BSs. If you want people to use a carrier for logistics, create another carrier type, call it "Fleet Carrier" give it all the logistics bonuses from the normal carrier, make it able to field all its fighters at once but control none.
Or something. Moral of the story is LEAVE MY CARRIER ALONE! "So how did you survive this long in 0.0 with no MWD?" 'I didn't. I died. Alot' |
ThisAlt IsUseless
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 23:20:00 -
[2547]
Originally by: Cadela Fria
Originally by: ThisAlt IsUseless
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.
Also, please lay off the quote button, and post with your main.
no?
|
Reptzo
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 23:21:00 -
[2548]
Originally by: ThisAlt IsUseless
Originally by: Cadela Fria
Originally by: ThisAlt IsUseless
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.
Also, please lay off the quote button, and post with your main.
no?
This needs more YO MAMA
|
ArmyOfMe
hirr Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 23:21:00 -
[2549]
last in a epic thread?
|
Mire lestat
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 23:22:00 -
[2550]
Here is the one problem I see. During fleet battles I have sent a swarm of shield drones on a friendly target, 5 seconds after that I got hit with massive Ewar. neutralizing my logistics to 10k or less with over 100 second lock time of friendly ships. The swarm of shield drones kept that friendly target alive during the fleet battle as I struggled through the Ewar.
If you limit drones to 5 only with a cap ship it effects the amount of healing repair drones can do. And the number of friendly ships you can send repair drones to.
And I will refrain from mentioning the mining drone swarms during mining ops. or the swarms of Ewar drones. nothing says hello like 10 target laser drones on a interdictor.
|
|
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
|
|
Helison
Gallente Times of Ancar Pure.
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 23:56:00 -
[2581]
Originally by: ThisAlt IsUseless 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
Only bandwith, but carriers have only 125 bandwith, which equals 5 fighters or 5 heavy drones. It¦s possible to use more medium or light drones (tested myself).
|
Ztrain
Evolution Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 23:57:00 -
[2582]
Edited by: Ztrain on 23/10/2007 23:59:40
Originally by: Hyuuga Veralis 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.
I remember when Sigil changed it's publisher from Microsoft to SoE. Brad stayed up all night answering questions post after post while the Beta and regular community *****ed and moaned. So Dev's that actually do care about their product for better or worse do tend to actually actively put long hours in to get the pulse of their player base. Just because CCP don't care about their players don't think that other developers don't.
BTW thoes on the test server. delegate 5 fighters to a gang member. Then deploy 5 more and engage a target. Have the gang member return their fighters and see what happens.
Z CCP (Producers of Slide Show Online) takin the fun out of EVE, one patch at a time. |
ThisAlt IsUseless
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 23:58:00 -
[2583]
Originally by: Helison
Originally by: ThisAlt IsUseless 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
Only bandwith, but carriers have only 125 bandwith, which equals 5 fighters or 5 heavy drones. It¦s possible to use more medium or light drones (tested myself).
that mean ccp can fix this by updating a field in a database
wait & see...
|
bsspewer
Caldari Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 23:59:00 -
[2584]
I spent a year and 1/2 + and billions on getting my capital ships and finally my mothership.
I don't even spend that much time on my girlfriends.
At the end of the day I get f**ked by both.
|
Icome4u
Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 00:03:00 -
[2585]
Originally by: Mundem Pashdale Icome4u, I lol'd
;)
|
Bhagat
Amarr M. Corp M. PIRE
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 00:03:00 -
[2586]
Any dev posted after the Original op? ************************************************** No new content till the bugs are fixed CCP Please Fix [img]http:/ |
MR Spleen
Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 00:04:00 -
[2587]
As a dread pilot myself and not a carrier pilot I see this as another oppurtunity for ccp to punish the long serving pilot and remove him from the game, they are attempting to nerf the abilities of pilots with 50+ mil sp and make it easier for the newer player with 10mil sp to kill him prime example when dreads came out they could do huge amounts of damage to a moving BS almost instapoping them much as a BS could do with a cruiser, but they nerfed this making it only suitable for one job shooting at POS's (YAWN), thank you CCP all this is doing is putting those that wish to use a ship costing a couple of billion isk in battle to get bored and cancel there subscriptions due to a lack of any benefit of using that ship that they may have spent 9 months training for as well as complete boredom due to overly focused ships give us back options to fit a ship however we like and the ability to use them in real combat 1 carrier v 10 BS or 1 Dreadnaught v 10 BS make them as they should be a combat ship make them as the BS is to the cruiser not a heavily focused ship of boredom. Let us choose how to use them as we do with BS's that is why most people play this game so we can use our imagination and come up with weird ideas for fittings i.e. nanophoon, baiting abbadon etc.
Please give us back our firepower and imagination and let us enjoy eve again.
The years of skill training we have put in shouldn't be nerfed. |
Mundem Pashdale
Serenity Prime Praesidium Libertatis
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 00:06:00 -
[2588]
Originally by: MR Spleen As a dread pilot myself and not a carrier pilot I see this as another oppurtunity for ccp to punish the long serving pilot and remove him from the game, they are attempting to nerf the abilities of pilots with 50+ mil sp and make it easier for the newer player with 10mil sp to kill him prime example when dreads came out they could do huge amounts of damage to a moving BS almost instapoping them much as a BS could do with a cruiser, but they nerfed this making it only suitable for one job shooting at POS's (YAWN), thank you CCP all this is doing is putting those that wish to use a ship costing a couple of billion isk in battle to get bored and cancel there subscriptions due to a lack of any benefit of using that ship that they may have spent 9 months training for as well as complete boredom due to overly focused ships give us back options to fit a ship however we like and the ability to use them in real combat 1 carrier v 10 BS or 1 Dreadnaught v 10 BS make them as they should be a combat ship make them as the BS is to the cruiser not a heavily focused ship of boredom. Let us choose how to use them as we do with BS's that is why most people play this game so we can use our imagination and come up with weird ideas for fittings i.e. nanophoon, baiting abbadon etc.
Please give us back our firepower and imagination and let us enjoy eve again.
The years of skill training we have put in shouldn't be nerfed.
Spleen speaks the truth
|
Kwint Sommer
Incoherent Inc Otaku Invasion
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 00:06:00 -
[2589]
Edited by: Kwint Sommer on 24/10/2007 00:10:52
Originally by: Sharupak 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.
Apparently you don't understand how this works. 1) Fighters could always be assigned to other ships, no one ever did because it's inherently flawed and the user interface is crap and utterly fails in lag just as a nice little bonus. 2) Fighters can't hit small things like cruisers very well so you wouldn't endanger them just to take a few shots at a Caracal. 3) The fighters belong to the carrier, he gets the killmail. 4) This doesn't boost anything because the system of assigning fighters doesn't work. 5) A set of 5 fighters cost 100M and is extremely fragile, unless you're a very good and responsible friend of a carrier pilot there's no way in hell he'll let you use them.
I guess it's okay to be ignorant about how carriers actually work, I mean CCP's developers are....
Sig removed. Please keep sigs to 400x120 pixels and 24000 bytes in size or less. -Kaemonn |
Aelena Thraant
Shadows of the Dead Aftermath Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 00:07:00 -
[2590]
Seriously did you hire someone from SOE... Heed the warnings of mass protest on this guys.... SWG didn't and look at their player base now... I played that game for 2 years to quit 4 accounts overnight due to the NGE and have never looked back. This market is to competitive to **** off your player base...
But hey it will reduce lag... Since so many people will stop playing we might get down to the 15k people during prime time weekend :(
|
|
Kwint Sommer
Incoherent Inc Otaku Invasion
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 00:08:00 -
[2591]
Edited by: Kwint Sommer on 24/10/2007 00:13:27
Originally by: Bhagat Any dev posted after the Original op?
Posted? Yes, 3 have contributed a combined total of nearly a dozen posts.
The gist of those posts? Simmer down!
The meaningful content of those posts? Nothing beyond the fact that a dev blog is coming "soon".
Sig removed. Please keep sigs to 400x120 pixels and 24000 bytes in size or less. -Kaemonn |
Hyuuga Veralis
Pator Tech School
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 00:09:00 -
[2592]
Originally by: Ztrain Edited by: Ztrain on 23/10/2007 23:59:40
Originally by: Hyuuga Veralis 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.
I remember when Sigil changed it's publisher from Microsoft to SoE. Brad stayed up all night answering questions post after post while the Beta and regular community *****ed and moaned. So Dev's that actually do care about their product for better or worse do tend to actually actively put long hours in to get the pulse of their player base. Just because CCP don't care about their players don't think that other developers don't.
BTW thoes on the test server. delegate 5 fighters to a gang member. Then deploy 5 more and engage a target. Have the gang member return their fighters and see what happens.
Z
To be fair, I think that's different than people complaining that a logistics ship isn't going to be a better overall offensive weapon than the offensive capital. -------------- Fulfilling 0.0 Ammo needs since 2 days after being made. |
Sean Drake
Caldari Dirty Deeds Corp. Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 00:11:00 -
[2593]
Hmm just discovered somthing new on the test server you cannot refine a Carrier was it all ways like that or did they just nerf it to stop the econemy going boom when this nerf goes through?
If Goons AND BoB are agreeing with each other that your idea is stupid, it's probably stupid. |
GC13
Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 00:12:00 -
[2594]
Originally by: Kwint Sommer 1) Fighters could always be assigned to other ships, no one ever did because it's inherently flawed and the user interface is crap and utterly fails in lag just as a nice little bonus.
Check my suggestion out. I think it would seriously help the fighter delegation interface. I am, of course, partial to that improvement, the drone GUI improvement from a previous dev blog, and if CCP feels it necessary the fighter range change in the bottom of my post AS OPPOSED TO this nerf which is really just a hassle.
--
Science and Industry guide plus A Newbie's Guide to Caldari Ships |
Kwint Sommer
Incoherent Inc Otaku Invasion
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 00:13:00 -
[2595]
Originally by: Sean Drake Hmm just discovered somthing new on the test server you cannot refine a Carrier was it all ways like that or did they just nerf it to stop the econemy going boom when this nerf goes through?
I don't know, the big question is, is there any way to refine a mothership? Then at least they could upwards of 15B in raw materials out of it so they wouldn't be totally screwed....
Sig removed. Please keep sigs to 400x120 pixels and 24000 bytes in size or less. -Kaemonn |
Sharupak
Minmatar Knights Of the Black Sun Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 00:13:00 -
[2596]
Edited by: Sharupak on 24/10/2007 00:14:18
Originally by: Kwint Sommer Edited by: Kwint Sommer on 24/10/2007 00:10:52
Originally by: Sharupak 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.
Apparently you don't understand how this works. 1) Fighters could always be assigned to other ships, no one ever did because it's inherently flawed and the user interface is crap and utterly fails in lag just as a nice little bonus. 2) Fighters can't hit small things like cruisers very well so you wouldn't endanger them just to take a few shots at a Caracal. 3) The fighters belong to the carrier, he gets the killmail. 4) This doesn't boost anything because the system of assigning fighters doesn't work. 5) A set of 5 fighters cost 100M and is extremely fragile, unless you're a very good and responsible friend of a carrier pilot there's no way in hell he'll let you use them.
I guess it's okay to be ignorant about how carriers actually work, I mean CCP's developers are....
Perhaps then someone should suggest that system should be changed to this method of combat. Its obvious though that this will make fleet combat way more dynamic and fun. I mean this is probably comming out with the drone UI improvement. All kinds of very cool possibilities are there man. _______________________________________________ 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. |
elohllird
Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 00:14:00 -
[2597]
Originally by: Jaabaa Prime Edited by: Jaabaa Prime on 23/10/2007 22:22:26 The idea is still BOLLOXS and will remain BOLLOXS,
even if you simply take SPs, ISK and time invested into account, it's still BOLLOXS.
After that investment, I think that you SHOULD be able to BBQ a battleship.
What CCP got wrong, was making sure that they can't get scrambled in EMPIRE, no bubbles, no 'dictors, no way.
Remove this ability (i.e. not being able to be warp scrambled without a bubble) otherwise it remains BOLLOXS.
So, Zulu, after so many pages, did you get the position of the players, the idea is BOLLOXS.
nice jaabaa, couldnt agree more
|
Xaen
Caldari Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 00:15:00 -
[2598]
Originally by: Kwint Sommer Apparently you don't understand how this works. 1) Fighters could always be assigned to other ships, no one ever did because it's inherently flawed and the user interface is crap and utterly fails in lag just as a nice little bonus. 2) Fighters can't hit small things like cruisers very well so you wouldn't endanger them just to take a few shots at a Caracal. 3) The fighters belong to the carrier, he gets the killmail. 4) This doesn't boost anything but the system of assigning fighters doesn't work. 5) A set of 5 fighters cost 100M and is extremely fragile, unless you're a very good and responsible friend of a carrier pilot there's no way in hell he'll let you use them.
I guess it's okay to be ignorant about how carriers actually work, I mean CCP's developers are....
First off, I wholeheartedly oppose this change (see sig).
That said, assigning fighters to fast lockers in small, trusted gangs is highly beneficial. Get the hurt going fast. In huge battles, not so much. But there are benefits.
Now with the drone changes allowing aggressive mode this might not be such a big deal anymore. Assuming they don't ruin carriers and moms first.
In closing: I'm not going to spend 90 more days training and dropping billions for a carrier that can field five freaking drones. Even if they're fighters. --
Support fixing the EVE UI
|
IonHammer
Minmatar Black Avatar
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 00:16:00 -
[2599]
Ion's Cap ship repatriation ideas,
1. Make cap's imune to ew. 2. Give Moms a short range jump bridge. 3. Bring in Capital Smart bomb's
My 1 billion isk carrier should be able to stand its grounds to a similar isk basket of ships, atm against a small group of hac's command ship's and heavy interdictors when they arrive i am screwed.
Let't consider how screwed mom pilots are.
I am still ammazed that ccp just keep adding layers of complexity to solvle percieved issues.
Still to this day the only thing that comes close to the fun value of a crow with cruise missiles aka early 04 is maybe a vaga.
This sucks human brown bits
If thats your real life i'm very jealous - Petwraith |
ThisAlt IsUseless
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 00:23:00 -
[2600]
now page 104
|
|
Phantom Slave
Amarr Mozzaki United
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 00:23:00 -
[2601]
There's a reply to a thread, in the Test server section, that asks if the carrier nerf had already gone through, and a Dev replied that they're just implementing Bandwidth and that the so called 'nerf' has NOT gone into effect, they just haven't finished coding the rest of the carrier abilities.
Chill. ____________________
Pirating in EVE is like kicking a squirrel and stealing his food. The squirrel hates you afterwards, but it's fun none the less. |
Malie
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 00:23:00 -
[2602]
This guy had to come from sony. AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH EQ ALL OVER AGAIN! "wizards are overpower we shall nerf them now" 4 days later "Any wizards on i need a tp" "(total silence)"
Ever seen a dev go into witness protectiong program? Might soon
|
Sharupak
Minmatar Knights Of the Black Sun Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 00:24:00 -
[2603]
Originally by: Acacia Everto
Originally by: Kwint Sommer
Originally by: Sharupak 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.
Apparently you don't understand how this works. 1) Fighters could always be assigned to other ships, no one ever did because it's inherently flawed and the user interface is crap and utterly fails in lag just as a nice little bonus. 2) Fighters can't hit small things like cruisers very well so you wouldn't endanger them just to take a few shots at a Caracal. 3) The fighters belong to the carrier, he gets the killmail. 4) This doesn't boost anything but the system of assigning fighters doesn't work. 5) A set of 5 fighters cost 100M and is extremely fragile, unless you're a very good and responsible friend of a carrier pilot there's no way in hell he'll let you use them.
I guess it's okay to be ignorant about how carriers actually work, I mean CCP's developers are....
Agreed. Not only this but...
Fighters. Rank 12. 20% damage PER LEVEL. This is not applied to delegated fighters. Gallente Carrier. Thanatos 5% damage per level. This is not applied to delegated fighters.
This effectively nerfs a Thanatos's 10 fighters by 125% at max skills, with only 5 fighters doing their previous damage.
Nerf of DPS as well as flexibility. Let me do what the hell I want with my carrier's drones, because it sure as hell isn't solo work.
Man its all doom and gloom with you people. He said it was a rough idea and nothing is being commited too. Which means you have no proof that this will be the case if it happens at all.
Shuttle pwn FTW! _______________________________________________ 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. |
Kwint Sommer
Incoherent Inc Otaku Invasion
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 00:30:00 -
[2604]
Originally by: Bon Hedus Still no dev blog?
I'm starting to think they said, "it's not that big of a deal, it can wait another day" and called it a night.
Hopefully that isn't the case and they're just taking a while to pull all of the good ideas out of this thread and compose them into a much saner set of changes that will be released as soon as humanly possible in a dev blog and the reason they're not commenting in the thread is because they want to have a very well reasoned, thought out solution and not just this shooting from the hip stuff that's got us fearing the apocalypse.
That said, every hour makes me think a bit more that they just don't give a damn about there player base anymore. They sure as hell don't care about the integrity of the game anymore if they would suggest such drastic and ship breaking changes as this....
Sig removed. Please keep sigs to 400x120 pixels and 24000 bytes in size or less. -Kaemonn |
Reptzo
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 00:31:00 -
[2605]
Edited by: Reptzo on 24/10/2007 00:30:58 this is what happens when you nerf carriers
http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/6962/moldinpotsm8.jpg
dont say i didnt warn you
|
Hyuuga Veralis
Pator Tech School
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 00:31:00 -
[2606]
Originally by: IonHammer My 1 billion isk carrier should be able to stand its grounds to a similar isk basket of ships, atm against a small group of hac's command ship's and heavy interdictors when they arrive i am screwed.
Why?
A Mega can't stand up to 100mil worth of cruisers.
Same goes for a cruiser vs its value in frigs.
Why shouldn't a Carrier be in trouble if it's solo vs a gang of T2 assault ships/battleships? Because it's a capital? Not good enough.
If anything, no ship in EVE should be allowed to be outright better than its value in smaller ships, and for the most part, that's the case.
This would exclude non-combat ships ofcourse.
Carriers are (supposedly) logistics ships with fighters and the ability to delegate them. For a long time they were also extremely versatile damage platforms. Now maybe the logistics side needs boosted further, and I don't mean triage. 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. -------------- Fulfilling 0.0 Ammo needs since 2 days after being made. |
ThisAlt IsUseless
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 00:32:00 -
[2607]
Originally by: Reptzo Edited by: Reptzo on 24/10/2007 00:30:58 this is what happens when you nerf carriers
http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/6962/moldinpotsm8.jpg
dont say i didnt warn you
yummy
i want! let do the nerf
|
Malie
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 00:33:00 -
[2608]
Thanatos BP for sale..... come on anyone..... anyone....... You can use it for toilet paper its like 1 meter ........ 3 isk anyone?
|
Reptzo
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 00:33:00 -
[2609]
Originally by: Malie Thanatos BP for sale..... come on anyone..... anyone....... You can use it for toilet paper its like 1 meter ........ 3 isk anyone?
I will take it
|
Inflexible
Rytiri Lva
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 00:36:00 -
[2610]
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.
|
|
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.
|
|
Trishan
Green Men Incorporated
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:34:00 -
[2641]
So recaping:
1. Expect drones to suffer to make sure you are vulnerable to BCs and below. 2. I would expect some kind of modulation module for fighters. That is, mounting a module gives a fighter cruiser resolution, or battleship resolution, or something like that, and you can only mount one. 3. Say hello to delegation. It will come. CCP wants it for a number of reasons.
While it doesn't affect me personally as I don't like big hulls too much, I'm rather frustrated wondering why CCP didn't put this blog along with the first one knowing it was going to be hot. It's not like they are new to the MMORPG business.
Also, I'm rather concerned about the timing. Zulupark says its just an idea to be talked about. They know its going to be controversial. Something having the effect of the idea appears in sisi and its allegedly coincidence. Then the devblog says they had only a couple days before the code freeze. Now, if sisi code was just a coincidence, all I can do is wonder when you were thinking about implementing these changes and putting them on the test server given the impending code freeze. Not good CCP.
Hamsters aren't powering the cluster. They have been promoted and are now CCP management. :P
|
Neu Bastian
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:38:00 -
[2642]
Originally by: Ezzaron
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?
by the looks of it, he'll get nerfed
|
Acacia Everto
Wings of Redemption Black Flag Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:42:00 -
[2643]
Why shouldn't a Carrier be able to kill a frigate? A Carrier in real life carriers small aircraft that can do a variety of different tasks. I wouldn't be using a Carrier as a jump freighter if I had a jump freighter, which we'll be getting, as long as you make it accessable enough to be a viable option.
The strength of a Carrier comes from its versatility. They're vulnerability is enough of a downside to cover the Carrier filling many roles which in the past were impossible to fill otherwise. You're giving us ships which can do this, and that's good. We'll stop using Carriers so much for that role. EWAR neutralizes the Logistical and Offensive ability of a Carrier easily.
Carriers are fine. Motherships need a looking at.
|
Merin Ryskin
FinFleet Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:43:00 -
[2644]
Edited by: Merin Ryskin on 24/10/2007 01:44:22 Most of what I'd add has already been said, but +1 on "what the hell are you thinking?". This is an incredibly stupid idea, forget about three months from now, just bury the issue and call it a joke. The last thing we need is for carriers to be forced even more strongly into sitting at a POS trying to keep track of who actually has fighters, and praying the server is stable enough to get them assigned properly.
Really, the fact that this was even proposed makes it even clearer that whoever suggested it has no experience with carriers or large-gang fights. It might work alright for ONE carrier, but for several? To assign fighters in a big group, you'd have to:
1) Find someone who doesn't already have fighters assigned from one of the other carriers in the gang.
2) Get them to pull in their drones.
3) Wait for the fighters to arrive.
4) Start over from the beginning, since the guy you were trying to assign fighters to just died.
Of course don't forget, you're doing this on a busy teamspeak server, where your FC is trying to coordinate targets, your logistics pilots are listening for calls for help, etc. And probably in a situation with heavy lag, changing a simple "launch, attack" to include several more steps of lag delays. This isn't skill or balance. It's frustrating, pointless fighting against the interface.
I won't threaten to cancel my account, but this change has made me seriously reconsider training for capital ships. Good job disappointing your paying customers.
|
MR Spleen
Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:52:00 -
[2645]
As I said earlier CCP is nerfing anyone who has taken the time to train for capital ships the difference with the carrier nerf and the dread nerf (which happened about 6 months after dreads where released) is that they are not finding it so easy as there are so many carrier pilots, but most of the pilots that fly dreads will not use there dreads in anything but POS warfare as they will die guaranteed due to the dread nerf which wiped out there tracking ability and ccp is now effectively wanting to do the same to the carrier what is the point in training to fly capitals? Ontop of this dreads are now almost completely useless with the introduction of cyno jammers so they can't even for fill there designed roll after nerf and this will be the same fate eventually for the carrier.
I am also seriously considering cancelling all 3 of my accounts as the fun is gone and I can't see the point of going any further with capital skills.
|
Kailiao
The Black Fleet
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 02:00:00 -
[2646]
Originally by: Phoenus Edited by: Phoenus on 21/10/2007 11:25:49 I'm somewhat concerned with the direction that CCP seems to be taking with this, to be honest.
You are taking away what little fun remains in this game. Solo/small scale PVP is almost none existant. Titans are nerfed beyond recognition, and now you are considering doing the same for Carriers/Motherships.
Are you trying to encourage blobbing, by appeasing the small number of whiners on the forums?
EDIT: Bad spelling
The reason small gangs/ solo pvp is now nonexistant is becouse of cap ships/blobs.
People need to start flying old-school again, with wreckless abandon/small gang, and not worry about loseing there 25 bill isk ships.
|
Valea
Wrath Of Khaine
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 02:06:00 -
[2647]
Why is there the false opinion among the devs that carriers are some sort of massive damage dealer. They are right that carriers are able to pick and choose the right drones for the job, but that comes with quite a pricetag. In my oppinion, fighters should only be effective against battleships and battlecruisers to a lesser extent. The flexibility of a carrier is great, but the choice of drones really just means you can chose to do less damage, but be more accurate, however no matter the choice, the damage you do will not exceed that of a gank fitted battleship. ---
|
mr bighelmet
EnTech Brutally Clever Empire
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 02:25:00 -
[2648]
i think i can some this up like this CCP: we didn't want those Cap ships anyway.
If i post something smart it represent my corp and alliance all other posts are my feeling/ideas only and do not represnt the rest |
Navjumper1
Setenta Corp Combined Planetary Union
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 02:27:00 -
[2649]
Stupidest idea yet
Were Recruiting!
|
DjArachno
Amarr Shadow Rebellion
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 02:28:00 -
[2650]
Edited by: DjArachno on 24/10/2007 02:30:31 Am just training up for archon& thanatos. Might just as well sell my archon and not even bother buying skill for advanced drone interfacing
Whole point and strength of carrier is its drone armada. Might just as well stick to my dread then for which i have superior skills to my carrier anyways. Way to go CCP
|
|
Larsonist
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 02:39:00 -
[2651]
Edited by: Larsonist on 24/10/2007 02:40:15 Sounds like someone straight up caved and with good reason.
CCP needs to realize that their game, and i stress their game, may not be based off reality but when you warp an idea to the point where its nonsensical...all hell is gonna break lose. Ships of this class becoming jokes is NOT cool!
Thankyou CCP for the blog response. I, as well as the rest of the player base(i hope), understands how you feel about the use of items used to the extreme. In the past, every module that is overused/abused gets loving from you guys. It only makes sense that you would do the same to a ship class or particular ship. Having said all this, so many factors are involved with this recent issue. This is definately not as simple a thing as NOS. I plead with you guys, tweak them...make the necessary changes you feel are necessary to make them "balanced" but for god's sakes, dont change the essence of what carriers and motherships are.
That being, glorious beasts of battle that our dangerous as well as awe inspiring. Vessels to be feared, not vessels that every swingin' di%^ in the game regardless of ships they pilot feel like they should attempt to tackle or bubble and laugh at the whole time.
Thanks,
lars
|
Idara
Caldari Contraband Inc. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 02:43:00 -
[2652]
Originally by: Kailiao
Originally by: Phoenus Edited by: Phoenus on 21/10/2007 11:25:49 I'm somewhat concerned with the direction that CCP seems to be taking with this, to be honest.
You are taking away what little fun remains in this game. Solo/small scale PVP is almost none existant. Titans are nerfed beyond recognition, and now you are considering doing the same for Carriers/Motherships.
Are you trying to encourage blobbing, by appeasing the small number of whiners on the forums?
EDIT: Bad spelling
The reason small gangs/ solo pvp is now nonexistant is becouse of cap ships/blobs.
People need to start flying old-school again, with wreckless abandon/small gang, and not worry about loseing there 25 bill isk ships.
Heh, you're still mad about being mombombed? ---
in EVE - Idara |
Dhan
Resurrection R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 02:46:00 -
[2653]
Stupid idea CCP. Way to let us down again.
|
Kailiao
The Black Fleet
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 02:50:00 -
[2654]
Originally by: Idara
Originally by: Kailiao
Originally by: Phoenus Edited by: Phoenus on 21/10/2007 11:25:49 I'm somewhat concerned with the direction that CCP seems to be taking with this, to be honest.
You are taking away what little fun remains in this game. Solo/small scale PVP is almost none existant. Titans are nerfed beyond recognition, and now you are considering doing the same for Carriers/Motherships.
Are you trying to encourage blobbing, by appeasing the small number of whiners on the forums?
EDIT: Bad spelling
The reason small gangs/ solo pvp is now nonexistant is becouse of cap ships/blobs.
People need to start flying old-school again, with wreckless abandon/small gang, and not worry about loseing there 25 bill isk ships.
Heh, you're still mad about being mombombed?
lol, you still talking about that man, just let it go, your ego is still intact
|
Transcendant One
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 02:51:00 -
[2655]
Quote: So Iæm not nerfed today but in 3 months instead?
Translation: don't go, we want your money!
We'll still **** you over in the end.
|
Li via
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 02:55:00 -
[2656]
Just as an FYI to all those who think this will stop the MOM-Bomb, if these changes go into effect, I will have nothing to other than sit in low sec in my mom and blow up newbs. As I imagine more mothership pilots will do. I see this having no effect on that sort of play, so for any of you out there that are raging against that, well maybe you wanna rethink that position.
|
lofty29
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 02:55:00 -
[2657]
Originally by: DjArachno Edited by: DjArachno on 24/10/2007 02:30:31 Am just training up for archon& thanatos. Might just as well sell my archon and not even bother buying skill for advanced drone interfacing
Whole point and strength of carrier is its drone armada. Might just as well stick to my dread then for which i have superior skills to my carrier anyways. Way to go CCP
READ TEH DEVBLOGS! EVERYTHING IS BETTAR! ---
Latest Video : FAT- Camp |
islador
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 03:01:00 -
[2658]
I used to fly a carrier, had 10 droens out, got my ass into a solo carrier (me) vs. 15 man POs team, i did not kill a battlecruiser in .2 seconds, or even 2 mintues for that matter, carriers are not evil kill everything ships. Carriers are lethal, and they shoudl remain that way, you wana limit them, then cut their cost in half and limit them. you pay for your uberness, same as with every other ship, stop trying to balance it all, and just let the carriers be uber, we all pay for it, we should be allowed to do it.
In another light, the ISK required to setup a carrier and purcahse it is immense. In addition the logistics of carriers are unbelievable, travel takes 1km3 of iso's, along with a cyno gen on ANOTHER ship.
Carriers do NOT require nerfing, regardless of what you argue, if you can get the price down, then the logistics comes into play, if you can get them both down then youget to deal with lag, and combat viability. If your goign to nerf ships, nerf the drake, or better yet, come out with a ****ty ship, call it a "nerf mobile" and nerf taht to your hearts content.
|
Felysta Sandorn
Caldari System-Lords Insurgency
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 03:33:00 -
[2659]
Please check this out for a proposed capital ship idea...
Latest Video, Click Here!
|
Gyle
Caldari Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 03:37:00 -
[2660]
OK ccp. The petition has just broke 24 hours in age and already we have 1083 post from people saying there gonna cancel their subscriptions if you do this.
Thats 16245 Euros a month in renvenue that will evaporate. Judging by the number of people with multiple accounts we can effectivly triple that (at least). Which comes too 48735 Euros a month.
Which makes a grand total of 584820 Euros a year. Do your self a favor. stop making poor buisness and game decisions and remove this attrocity from the test server immediatly
Support the movement players.
Sign the petition!
|
|
Khamal Jolstien
Caldari Lucky Hydra Corp SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 03:40:00 -
[2661]
Good changes. Keep up the good work CCP. Ships fill a role. ISK does not give you a free pass to uber.
|
Refazed
The Silent Rage
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 03:58:00 -
[2662]
Edited by: Refazed on 24/10/2007 03:58:40
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.
tell that to the t1 sniper pilots when they fight t2 snipers. tell that to the gangs wasted by snake implanted nano pilots. tell that to the t1 fit bc vs. a t2 fitted cruiser.
Sorry mate but isk (and skills) make you uber when compared to a cheaper ship/setup. Now there are counters to all this stuff. but hey, there are counters to cap ships too. If something becomes too hard to kill add a counter. Don't nerf its abilities.
comes down to the difference between evolution and regression.
|
Keira Trefenwyd
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 04:12:00 -
[2663]
Just in case anyone cares, I just put my thanatos up for sale! Cheers mates!
|
Sinner aint'no'Saint
Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 04:31:00 -
[2664]
Originally by: Gyle OK ccp. The petition has just broke 24 hours in age and already we have 1083 post from people saying there gonna cancel their subscriptions if you do this.
Thats 16245 Euros a month in renvenue that will evaporate. Judging by the number of people with multiple accounts we can effectivly triple that (at least). Which comes too 48735 Euros a month.
Which makes a grand total of 584820 Euros a year. Do your self a favor. stop making poor buisness and game decisions and remove this attrocity from the test server immediatly
Support the movement players.
Sign the petition!
Even if only half the people follow through, thats a **** load of money....
CCP- the ball is in your court... Either way I still have my fan fest ticket and I will come just to make fun of ******** Devs who just ruined a great game. Some of you may think that is a harsh or drastic statement after all it is only carriers and drones and their are lots of other aspects of the game but the point is that if CCP cant even listen to the players than there is nothing left here for any of us.
|
Sinner aint'no'Saint
Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 04:33:00 -
[2665]
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.
man, from one ally to another... you are really really really dumb.
|
Ztrain
Evolution Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 04:40:00 -
[2666]
Originally by: Vily account staying canceled
Yeah gonna have to agree there. More detailed response after looking things over again.
Z CCP (Producers of Slide Show Online) takin the fun out of EVE, one patch at a time. |
Merin Ryskin
FinFleet Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 04:55:00 -
[2667]
Originally by: Sinner aint'no'Saint Some of you may think that is a harsh or drastic statement after all it is only carriers and drones and their are lots of other aspects of the game but the point is that if CCP cant even listen to the players than there is nothing left here for any of us.
What he said.
Here we have 106 pages of near-unanimous agreement that the proposed changes are not just bad, but incredibly bad. This is as clear a statement of what the community wants as you're going to get, on ANY subject. If you still think you're right, too bad. We don't care. Your paying customers feel very strongly about this point, and you will be making a mistake of epic proportions if you ignore them and force these changes through. It doesn't help anyone to have you sitting in triumph, with a game perfectly reflecting your desires, on a server empty of players.
|
arxidi
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 04:56:00 -
[2668]
ridiculous idea
|
Ztrain
Evolution Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 05:16:00 -
[2669]
Originally by: CCP Nozh Most of you have probably read Zulupark's blog about the Carrier and Mothership changes we've been discussing here at the office, the feedback and next steps.
We done gone ****** up and are running around trying to change our collective diapers.
Originally by: CCP Nozh We expected such a drastic change to result in a lot of feedback. We did not expect the requests to prematurely end dear Zulupark's existence in this universe, some of which were *very* imaginative and in more ways than we thought possible. We'd like to point out all design matters are ratified in groups, so in the future, please include at least Hammerhead, Oveur and our janitor in any ill thoughts you may have as a result of EVE's direction.
We had already coded this thing in to the game and knew that there would be some feed back so we sacrificed the new guy to break you the news. Now we're trying to say it wasn't just him.
Wake up there people we've been referring to the entire Development staff as collective dim wits. Yes Hammerhead, Oveur you guy's are in there as well as having no clue what your are doing.
Originally by: CCP Nozh blah blah blah yeah the players have found things to do with their 30 billion isk ships that is fun to do
Well that's good! If if the 30 bil isk ships couldn't do a whole lot there'd be no reason for people to invest in the year or more of training and the cost of building the things now would they. That makes a lot of sense!
Originally by: CCP Nozh 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.
Ahhh many words later the stupidity starts to rear it's head yet again. Because not everyone in the game wants to have a ship that their predominantly in that they can't dock and switch to another ship. Not everyone can afford to buy or build their own Mothership. Unless there's been some epiphany that I wasn't aware of you can't put a cov ops cloak on mom and go give intel on a hostile POS tower to see what the hostiles are doing. You still can't use jump gates needing support to create cyno's where you need to go unless you have sov. Moms can't chase down dictors and other interceptors all around the game at 100 M/sec. This list of why you need other ships in the game goes on and on. Sorry but this is a lame excuse. Yes no other ship is as versital in the area's it does focus on but then again no other ship then mom and titan costs 30 bil + starting to wake up yet?
Originally by: CCP Nozh No ship in EVE should be the ôend gameö vessel, but that's what we feel we've got now. There are more than 10,000 Carriers in play, a vessel which can be everything you want it to be (which is part of the problem) without having to fit for the occasion. We donÆt want to see either of these ships ripping apart everything that gets in their way, no matter the size. Carrier and Motherships were designed to be a combined effort among corporation members where they rely on the group, and be pretty much defenseless against small ship classes without support.
Well sorry then you should go read a book on game design. There is always an end game unless your playing Bingo. Actually nm Bingo!!!! Yes there are a lot of carriers. Most players want one. That doesn't mean every character is in there carrier all the time. I know of many pilots in BoB that can fly carriers that we're out nightly in gangs flying non cap ships. I've seen RA capital pilots roving around in gangs NOT IN CAPS. Just because their in the database sitting in someone's hanger does not mean their useful every situation nor does it mean their actually being flown at any given moment in time.
Z
CCP (Producers of Slide Show Online) takin the fun out of EVE, one patch at a time. |
Coolgamer
Minmatar Res Publica R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 05:31:00 -
[2670]
Edited by: Coolgamer on 24/10/2007 05:33:34
Originally by: Merin Ryskin Edited by: Merin Ryskin on 24/10/2007 01:44:22 Most of what I'd add has already been said, but +1 on "what the hell are you thinking?". This is an incredibly stupid idea, forget about three months from now, just bury the issue and call it a joke. The last thing we need is for carriers to be forced even more strongly into sitting at a POS trying to keep track of who actually has fighters, and praying the server is stable enough to get them assigned properly.
Really, the fact that this was even proposed makes it even clearer that whoever suggested it has no experience with carriers or large-gang fights. It might work alright for ONE carrier, but for several? To assign fighters in a big group, you'd have to:
1) Find someone who doesn't already have fighters assigned from one of the other carriers in the gang.
2) Get them to pull in their drones.
3) Wait for the fighters to arrive.
4) Start over from the beginning, since the guy you were trying to assign fighters to just died.
Of course don't forget, you're doing this on a busy teamspeak server, where your FC is trying to coordinate targets, your logistics pilots are listening for calls for help, etc. And probably in a situation with heavy lag, changing a simple "launch, attack" to include several more steps of lag delays. This isn't skill or balance. It's frustrating, pointless fighting against the interface.
I won't threaten to cancel my account, but this change has made me seriously reconsider training for capital ships. Good job disappointing your paying customers.
/agreed
and it has been said multiple times here before, this is in fact THE only reason i am totally against that nerf the micromanagement of delegation will be such a pain that this nerf is nonsense
SAVE carrier and Moms |
|
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? _____________________________________
|
|
ER0X
Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 09:24:00 -
[2701]
Wall O Text
So there I was, sitting staring at my screen æspaced outÆ kind of drifting, thinking. You know what I mean. Then it dawned on me. They want the carrier to be dependent on support. OK. I get it. A carrier needs a minimum of 4 including the carrier pilot to be in a gang to utilise its fire power to kill,.. A Domi lets say. OK kool!
So I came up with a 1 carrier 1 recon 2 HAC formation in my minds eye as I always do before engaging in a battle to imagine how the fight might pan out.
Set the scene some arbitrary point in space. Assign Fighters 5 each for Arazu, Vaga Vaga. Cloaked Arazu canÆt carry the fighters oh well never mind weÆll work something out later. Here goes, target sighted the Recon has a warp in point set up already. The Arazu uncloaks 30km of the Domi points and RSDÆs the crap out of it. This Domi aint going no where VagaÆs on stand by with fighterÆs assigned warp to the Arazu. The Domi launches drones on Arazu who counters with 5 T2 EM lights and goes weapons hot while extending the orbit range. VagaÆs now on grid defend the Arazu by killing the drones while the Arazu works on the shields. The Domi going into armour launches more drones canÆt recall them quickly enough due to some desynch, didnÆt expect desynch with only this amount on grid but hey deal with it. DomiÆs drones are decimated cant launch more drones due to his desynch has no offensive response. Both VagaÆs and Arazu go to work on the Domi now. The massive Explosive hole in the DomiÆs armour tank canÆt handle the VagaÆs and the ArazuÆs limited fire power is just the icing on the cake. DomiÆs into structure he has a DC fitted itÆs gonna take ohh another 10 secÆs to kill this guy when Boom!! DomiÆs down. At this point I notice the Fighters in space ,.. Damn I forgot to give the attack command. Hmm? Then I get to thinking. What exactly did I need the Carrier for again?
Then I had another thought maybe they meant in fleet battles. OK Kool.
Set the scene Battle formation around an entry point gate in a Cyno jammed system. 1 Carrier 50 BS 6 CS 20HAC 20INTY 10 LOGISTICS 13 assorted T1 cruisers and frigs. IÆm in the Speed Wing in my Crow class vessel with 5 of the fighters assigned. The gangs been set up perfectly from the Fleet Commander to the Wings to the Squads all the various bonuses from all the various commanders is filtering down brilliantly. I dunno who IÆm getting this bonus from but whoever it is I Love this guy. My crow can do 14k m/s without the need for specialised gear I suspect the other bonuses to shield and armour are equally as impressive. The Objective of my targets is to take down the cyno jammer. They have brought a heavy BS fleet roughly 80 BS same number of CS HACS and INTYS as my own fleet.
Oh Shyt here they come! TS silent FC calls arrange OV in Alphabetical order prepare for jump in lag. Shyt there it is Gate fire. Nothing appears,.. WTF? After 3 mins Hostile BS begin to appear one at a time must have desynched taking fire from god knows where. Extend orbit half shields. I need Shield command issued to Gang do it now knowing the carrier needs time to lock me. FC calls primary YES IÆve loaded this guy initiate Lock, Warp Scram, command fighters attack target. Blinky modules no lock yet! 150km orbit around gate 14k m/s WTF? Carrier pilot calls Logistics for rep in Gang says it in TS. 20 seconds later Carrier pilot on TS forget it IÆm down. I load the grid IÆm 20au from the gate ship on fire WTF? Hostile forces are in 40 friendly BS dead 1 carrier dead 19 HACS dead 5 INTYS dead.
Post battle analysis this shouldnÆt have happened we had support for the carrier and we all know with support itÆs an OMGSOLOPWNMOBILE!. Yeah but with that kind of fire power focused on him desynch and lag from the jump in we couldnÆt lock and repair him quickly enough. With that kind of focus fire even if we had locks on him we couldnÆt have repped him quickly enough. NO SHYT SHERLOCK!
|
Ztrain
Evolution Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 09:38:00 -
[2702]
Originally by: Lazuran
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
No their Vampire game gonna me more from the same crappy developers. In fact I have it on good authority that they're going to program that game with Cobal instead of Python because it's a much older and more refined language!
Okay almost said that with a straight face....
Z CCP (Producers of Slide Show Online) takin the fun out of EVE, one patch at a time. |
ER0X
Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 09:43:00 -
[2703]
Originally by: Ztrain
Secret plan to get us to move on to their next game when it's out. ;-P
No their Vampire game gonna me more from the same crappy developers. In fact I have it on good authority that they're going to program that game with Cobal instead of Python because it's a much older and more refined language!
Okay almost said that with a straight face....
Z
Nah mate its FORTRAN ftw here lol
|
oniplE
NED-Clan R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 10:01:00 -
[2704]
Edited by: oniplE on 24/10/2007 10:01:18 This new blog is even worse than the first one. Atleast you made it look like you would be open to suggestions in the first, now we know that was just a bunch of crap and you will force this change no matter what, nice.
|
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar MASS HOMICIDE Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 10:03:00 -
[2705]
Guys (AND CCP). Give a look at this thread http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=620449
That is why i think huge carrier fleet NEED some nerf. But not on firepower. The main proble m is SEVERAL carriers remote repairing each other that makes them unkillable.
A REASONABLE nerf to only carrier fleets woudl be, You CANNOT be remote repaired by more than 3 Ships at a time.
THAT woudl be a reasonable nerf that woudl hit the true problem of huge carrier fleets.
If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough |
Piccalo
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 10:25:00 -
[2706]
First you took away the 10 drone domi and now you want to take away the 20+ fighter drone mother, to help with the lag. Thats the real issue at hand isnt it CCP. You fill if you take away being able to use 20+ drones at one time by one player then you will take away lag. Well lag in this game is here, and its here to stay.
With out 20+ drones a carrier or mothership is just a big O paper waight that takes for ever to turn and warp off, has no guns to defend its self and only 5 drones that can be taken out by a small fleet of cruser, and bc.
If someone flys there billion isk ship by them self and lose's it its there falt. If a noob go's in to low sec and run's in to one by its self then its both there falts. As well as CCP's, cause if thats a reson why you are thinking about this then put more or stronger guns in low sec........
|
SSDD24
Gallente Umbra Congregatio Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 10:46:00 -
[2707]
dont nerf carriers. nerf lag. nerf desyncs. nerf stupidity
IAC MILF series!!!! Episodes 1 and 2 out now!!!! |
Zeromancer
Corp Zero
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 11:11:00 -
[2708]
Ok, i have read the new devblog and also the answers from Oveur in the new tread and i'm a bit more positive now. it seems that they are coming to their senses but i'll have to wait until they come up with more info until i decide what to do with my accounts.
The ideas for carriers to be fitted for spesific roles sounds good. That way you can fit for max damage, max logistic or max support roles. For now, carriers stay unchanged atleast for a few months, lets hope they listen to all the good suggestions from the players.
|
Fred 104
New Justice
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 11:18:00 -
[2709]
Wow, I am a sad panda right now. Not so much because of the changes, if they're going to ram it down our throats... well, it's their game to **** up. No, I'm sad because I just paid for 2 of my 5 accounts for 6 months.
No joke, cancelling all 5 if this makes it live. No you can't have my stuff, but if you're lucky I'll post a vid of me refining it all, and then trashing the mins.
|
JERIC0
NailorTech Industries
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 11:20:00 -
[2710]
Can I have a refund on all the SP points I gained on towards Carriers and have them moved to something which isnt going to be nerfed. Kinda wasted 3 months of my time on carriers when they are only going to be oversized battlecruiser :(
|
|
Fred 104
New Justice
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 11:22:00 -
[2711]
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.
Honestly? I call bull****.
|
SugarFr33
Gallente RAW MACABRE
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 11:25:00 -
[2712]
no
RPM Recruitment Thread |
Dragothur0
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 11:34:00 -
[2713]
If CCP do this they are not getting my money any more .. Anyone know of some good new games ? ^^
|
Fred 104
New Justice
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 11:41:00 -
[2714]
Originally by: ZaKma [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.
From Sisi local. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
Is this a real dev quote? Or just some inflammatory garbage ya made up?
|
Gr1mreaper
Gallente Stupid People Always Need Killing
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 11:59:00 -
[2715]
spent months training for a carrier and saving for one.
now ccp change it . makes me wanna jack in my account
totally object to this rubbish VICTORY WITHOUT INTEGRITY IS LOSS
|
iimethodii
Caldari Fallen Angel's Blade.
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 12:40:00 -
[2716]
Considering the amount of time I spent training up for carrier V on one of my characters, can I please have the skill downgraded to lv4, and those skill points re-distributed how I see fit, as I no longer have a need for that skill at all, and consider that a good 2 months of training time wasted, only to be slammed with a change of such epic failure.
****, I may just cancel all 5 of my accounts.
|
sxndy
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 12:50:00 -
[2717]
Originally by: Fred 104 Wow, I am a sad panda right now. Not so much because of the changes, if they're going to ram it down our throats... well, it's their game to **** up. No, I'm sad because I just paid for 2 of my 5 accounts for 6 months.
No joke, cancelling all 5 if this makes it live. No you can't have my stuff, but if you're lucky I'll post a vid of me refining it all, and then trashing the mins.
Sry to hear that dude, but I know how you feel. On the bright side CCP will get the game they want. One that they will only have ISK farmers to dictate too what they envisage the game should be.
Quote: CCP, along with their distribution partner in Asia, CDC, are pleased to announce that EVE Online was recognized as the Best 3D game and honored with a Golden Plume Award at this year's China Joy expo.
take it no-one told them about the carrier nerf?
I feel sick to my gut
|
Meepie
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 12:58:00 -
[2718]
Give us a 50% skillpoint reimbursement for removing Advanced Spaceship Command, Carrier and Fighters skills
|
Rachen Mysuna
Brotherhood of Polar Equation Mordus Angels
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 13:00:00 -
[2719]
Originally by: Meepie Give us a 50% skillpoint reimbursement for removing Advanced Spaceship Command, Carrier and Fighters skills
seconded, would stop many from canceling their cyno pilot accos like myself i would put it to command ships or such
|
Clan MacGregor
Gallente Army of the 12 Monkeys
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 13:19:00 -
[2720]
Carriers are already very vulnerable when operating alone and adding limitations to the number of fighters that a carrier pilot can control versus those that can be assigned, is going to increase "blobbing" and lag in fleet battles further. With these changes you will have the increase server issue of keeping track of who the drones are assigned to, who they belong to, the larger number of pilots in a fleet that will be necessary to control the drones, behavior of drones when control in lost or surrendered...
In effect, More Blob, More Lagggg, Less Play...
It has been my experience that you have also already decided to code in these features and are simply pretending we have any say...
|
|
Diggary
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 13:29:00 -
[2721]
Originally by: DarthMopp 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...
This pretty much sums up the way us carrier/MS pilots feel about the proposed nerf; we have all invested time/money in training for them, only to have them made near useless.
In a constructive sense, if the number of fighters/drones is to be lowered to a maximum of 5 controlled by the pilot him/herself, then new fighter/drone bonuses should be introduced (perhaps similar to the Moros's bonuses), or, a re-evaluation should be done to the proposed changes so that for example, the maximum number of controlled fighters/drones for a carrier is 10 and for a MS 15.
Seems fairer...
|
CHAOS100
Momentum. The Reckoning.
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 13:37:00 -
[2722]
Who wants to bet that 10000 carrier count gets a lot smaller after this horrible nerf hits.
I'm just wondering -- which nerf has been the worst in all of eve and received the worst response: 1. Missile nerf '05 or 2. This nerf --------------
|
Cupdeez
Vengeance of the Fallen
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 13:54:00 -
[2723]
Edited by: Cupdeez on 24/10/2007 13:55:26 This new developer should be fired for such a re--ta--rd--ed idea. Go back to Q&A we donÆt want you on the development team!!
Maybe he didnÆt spend 2 years training for a ship or spending hours getting enough isk to buy and setup the shipà Maybe heÆs never seen how 1 cruiser and 5 BS can make a carrier useless.
|
Caldorous
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 14:10:00 -
[2724]
Originally by: CHAOS100 Who wants to bet that 10000 carrier count gets a lot smaller after this horrible nerf hits.
I'm just wondering -- which nerf has been the worst in all of eve and received the worst response: 1. Missile nerf '05 or 2. This nerf
I dont remember a 108 pages long post about the missile overhaul... -----------------------------
|
PRO TECH
Dead Man Flyin
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 15:01:00 -
[2725]
can't they just make all drone types 5 x bigger and stronger then there will be 5 x less played, sure they will cost around 5 times more but if all the rest are 5 x then that wouldn't be much of a problem as there would be 5 x less usable as to what there is now and this might help save having to let others control your drones
just my 2p from what i've read so far
|
0110010110010
Caldari The Collective
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 15:03:00 -
[2726]
Edited by: 0110010110010 on 24/10/2007 15:04:21 Your crasy, wher the Caps to Uber? jes, why? Kos we wher missin the t2 bs ingame!
Theas chages your thinking of are Killing the Ms. its big carrier with Ecm burst and sort jump range. To ad insolt to indury thay can¦t dock, So what your doing your making it So that ppl that fly thees ships are so wonrable now that thay cant log into the game untill thay made sure that ther is not a small time camp on ther log out spott and thats just treating ppl that take the effort in building the games bigest ship like dirt you dont what ingame,
hiding on fanfest will do you no good we hafe endlev probers in our teem! see you ther,
¦ar Sem 2 Skip Koma Saman ¦ar Er BloBBa !!! |
Koi Yokuma
Praetorian BlackGuard PURGE.
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 15:28:00 -
[2727]
Wow....I mean WOW! Puff puff pass Zulu, sharing is caring!
Who gave anyone the idea that a carrier is a solopwnmobile to begin with? A couple of assault frigs can already negate a carrierÆs entire offensive capability so why would we wanna make it easier? And what happens to the people that aren't in corps and fly around in their carriers running missions and stuff? (join corps people)
I'm sure itÆs been said before, but the problem is never how many carriers we have ready to go, the main concern is how large our support fleet is. (I thought the idea was to limit blobbing here?!?!?) Limiting drone control on a carrier is like limiting the number of turrets that can hold ammo on a battleship at one time.
This whole thing is quite silly really and I'm surprised it got this far. The person responsible for this idea should seriously be reviewed by his/her superiors over their @ CCP Land. <- That is not a joke. All I can see is a distinct lack of foresight in an attempt to implement a change that has no real positive attributes. That is a huge waist of my monthly fees. Give the money to someone who will think things through and can be a tool for effective change in this game.
|
Goyda
Veni Vidi Vici. SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 15:29:00 -
[2728]
I'm not a cap pilot, I don't desire to fly one. But this is just a bad idea, I've been killed by Mom's and carriers, big deal. I go refit and get back into it. That is THE PART of the game. I will say however, if this nerf goes out I will be cancelling my accounts (4) because it is only a matter of time before they do something stupid to the ships/equipment I use. I see less enhancments and more and more removal. There is so many items to 'fix' in this game but this is not one of them. Trying to turn this wonderful game into mind numbing nonsense like WoW or everquest ?
non-cap pilot, paying customer x4, thinking about quitting.
|
Trent0r
Caldari Nabaal Construction and Industrials Corp
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 15:58:00 -
[2729]
Edited by: Trent0r on 24/10/2007 15:59:11 This is an absolute outrage.
Here is a direct quote from the devblog:
Quote: the reason we want to implement something like this is that we feel that capital ships are being used way too much as better-than-battleships-at-killing-stuff ships
If carriers weren't meant to do that then why the hell are they priced at 1000mil+ or -!!
These offenses are required for the safety of a carrier. I've gone through some pretty shocking ship changes with CCP. I dealt with the nos nerf, heavily affecting how well my curse and pilgrim perform. I'm going to deal with the torp nerf and their range decrease. But a nerf that literally makes the entire essense of the ship since its bee in existance is downright awful.
|
Elmicker
Black Sea Industries Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 16:08:00 -
[2730]
Originally by: Fred 104 Is this a real dev quote? Or just some inflammatory garbage ya made up?
It's a real dev quote. He said the same thing to me, then promptly shut up when i reminded him that dreads can quite easily destroy smaller targets, when supported by the required ships. exactly the same situation as with carriers.
|
|
alexalas
KIA Corp KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 16:20:00 -
[2731]
Zulupark,
The main issue I have with the change is that at present it is impossible to delegate fighters in a capital engagement.
In most cases where capital ships are involved eve locks up your screen does not update for long periods of time (10 minuets +) and your only kept alive by the fact your fighters auto aggress.
If youÆre not able to use fighters without deploying them to another ship you are in turn asking for more ships to be brought into a fight therefore more lag.
Also I have not seen a response to the question asked what happens if a fighter controlling ship dies the carrier can only manage five drones if your five are attacking something and the fighter designated pilot dies will the drones return to ship?
Another reason I see this as a bad idea is that it will be adding a lot more calculations to fights that are already impossible KIAÆs engagement in Bosena four or five capitals and some battleships and support left the whole of local petitioning that the ôsystem has diedö I myself after being stuck with a screen that would not refresh and not wanting to log through thought of loosing fighters would not like to think that you are adding more lag to these situations.
The issues with low sec carrier and Mothership piracy will also not be resolved by nerfing capital ships pirates have always had better ships and more people than the people jumping into system and always will.
To help with Carriers and Motherships can we not look at faster locking for repairing ships in gang more bonuses to the fleet based on the Carrier or Motherships position in the fleet for example a Capital as a Squad Wing or Fleet commander generating more bonuses for the people below.
The complaints about Motherships being overpowered are also in vein yes you cant warp scramble it but park a battleship next to it and it cant turn or warp why is the scrambler needed ?
Please donÆt nerf the older players for the sake of the new generations moaning.
Alexalas.
Free Signature Hosting
|
Red Roger
Minmatar Spartan Dynamics
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 16:22:00 -
[2732]
all I has to say is.... CCP MOT***FU*****!!! ... Got Freight? |
Banlish
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 16:39:00 -
[2733]
Don't do it, we don't want it, EVERYONE on both EVERY side of every fence is saying not to (Congrats BoB and Goons are agreeing on something!) and pretty much 99.5% of the replies here are saying "Don't!" There's even a 43 page petition in another forum where people from every alliance in game are saying they'd rather cancel their accounts then accept this change.
Please stop nerfing us, you got a TREMENDOUS amount of people from SWG when they nerfed jedi's into a starting class. Now your going to take something some people have spent over a YEAR trying to skill and afford and make them worthless?
See the similarities?
No, CCP, god no.
Banlish CEO - Di-Tron Heavy Industries ATLAS Head Diplomat
|
Jade Moonshadow
DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 16:43:00 -
[2734]
The developers are falling into the trap that seems to happen to many MMO's after years of deployment. They are too close to the product in the sense of wanting it played their way. It's also laughable that you can post about seeing the direction of capital ships over the past few days.
Do you honestly believe this is enough time to make any informed decision? As has been asked before, have you flown a solo carrier in combat on TQ? We have a simple T1 frigate with sensor damps that can effectively remove a carriers ability to help their friends (remote reps) or defend themselves properly). We have scores of carriers killed because in fact, they are not solo pwnmobiles.
Over 100 pages of people explaining, from carrier pilots to those who do not fly them, that this idea is bad. You have players from alliances who fight day in and day out coming together and agreeing this change is a horrible idea.
You have false statements made by developers about killing a battleship in .2 seconds. No pvp battleship with a pilot who knows how to fly it will fall to a solo carrier like this, Period.
If the amount of outcry on this issue is not enough to get them to move away from these changes, I wouldn't expect any player input ever to be valued.
I have an alt that flies a carrier. I have spent the better part of that alt's 'life' training for it and spent all of my earnings on it. I hardly believe that I am a pwn mobile nor do I play it as one. A carrier pilot knows it's limitations and how truely fragile it can be.
If you want carriers to play a larger logisitics role, as I said in a post back in the 40 pages, give them the ability to dock and jump player ships.
Carriers could carrier frigate class, cruiser class, perhaps BC. Motherships the same, but also battleships and industrials.
This will increase their role, provide their own support base, but I still would not remove their defensive ability.
The fundimental design problem with eve is that a module that fits on a frigate, a sensor dampner as an example, also moves up through all the ship classes. This module does not scale like a weapon does based upon size, therefor, there are no scaling effects upon it.
A frigate by itself, should not have the ability to render the sensors of a capital class ship virtually inoperable. It makes absolutely no sense. The guns of that lone frigate cannot scratch it, but a single sensor dampner can change it's ability to function as even the developers would like it, a support ship.
Modules like this should have a value, scaled based upon the class it is designed for (Frigate Sensor Damp, Cruiser sensor damp, Battleship Sensor Damp, etc.) How a capital class ship does not have any greater sensor design above that of a frigate is completely laughable.
Sorry for the random rant, but I as well will likely move on if these changes go through. This game has been a great amount of fun with a great group of people I have flown with, but a balance is in place based upon the size of the ship and cost/training involved. If you make such drastic changes after 1.5 years of a persons time to train for a particular ship as well as time invested in the work it takes to pay for said ship who knows what could be next.
You have a simple choice, listen to your player base, which is significant on this issue, or continue forward and take a risk of losing those very people who have supported you for year after year with their payments.
|
Boonaki
Caldari Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 16:57:00 -
[2735]
Motherships, now just 2 carriers for 20 times the cost.
Sigs are for losers. Yes this is a sig. |
Veinnail
Solstice Systems Development Concourse
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 17:32:00 -
[2736]
Dont do it CCP.
this is Not in the better interests of your player base.
SSDC Wants YOU! |
Hyron
Nazcan Technologies Dread Sovereign
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 17:44:00 -
[2737]
lol, whats the bets that ccp does 'a ccp', completely ignores the thousands of people who have said a resounding 'NO FFS' and impliments it anyway.
Im canceling my account if you do. There are lots of other good games out there and the **** we have to put up with from you is more than enough for me to leave. This is crossing the line.
|
Polaras
Celestial Horizon Corp.
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 17:52:00 -
[2738]
I officially DO NOT LIKE the described idea.
Sorry I can't read all 108 pages so I can't be sure I'm not going to restate any arguments, but I can be sure that I will be reinforcing any arguments.
First, balancing is subtly different then QA.
There is no lag reduction in this change. The result will be a fleet of one will have 1 ship and 5 drones (1 carrier). A fleet of more then one will have 1 carrier launching possibly 19 fighters with no less then 5 ships in the same space. This encourages fleet fights and increases the number of drones during them. I thought we wanted to down play that?
This does not lessen the damage output on carriers. 19 fighters vs. 15 is NOT a reduction. IÆm not sure where you guys have gotten the idea that carriers are unstoppable pwning machines. Solo, it takes a carrier 10 sec to get a BS to structure. Carriers, solo, have to lock and order their fighters to engage the target. This process takes significant time that the target can use to warp out and a smart target will already be aligned. As soon as the fighters target, a smart pilot will have more then enough time to accelerate to get out with plenty of shield to spare. Carriers in solo PVP situations are already helpless. They cannot warp scram the target w/o hurting its tank. There for it canÆt effectively kill a target. Effective Carrier engagements were this ubar pwning occurs has at least 2 allied tacklers.
Lastly, forcing a pilot to delicate fighters after warping into the battle grid from a pos or just forcing him to delegate before he is at his combat potential is just another pre-fight hassle, over all making the game less fun. Can we avoid these changes?
Dev Blog counter signed.
|
Anacori
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 18:01:00 -
[2739]
That idea is a long way from being good (<- just to be polite)
If that hits i¦ll quit.
I am no carrier-pilot, won¦t be a carrier-pilot for a long time to go and if that hits (and what other stupid ideas may come?!) i won¦t be a paying costumer any longer.
|
Autumn Sky
Slacker Strip Mining Operation
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 18:05:00 -
[2740]
Edited by: Autumn Sky on 24/10/2007 18:05:25 This "rebalancing" experiment is precisely the kind of thing you'd do in beta testing. You would look at all sides of the issue, gather feedback from your beta testers, and implement a change based on compromise.
However, this is not a game in beta. This is a game that people have been paying to play for years. To remove the usefulness of something that so many people have worked so hard for is really a slap in the face.
Imagine attending a university and being so close to graduating, after spending years of money and training, and then the university decides to restructure your department and "generalize" the degree so that it's less specialized and worth less to potential employers. What then? Sure, you'll still have the degree, but you won't get the job you wanted so badly. In this case....sure, you'll still get to fly a carrier, but your role will be diminished, and you'll be more valuable as cannon fodder.
I do understand the need of the devs to keep EVE playable. But out of those 10,000 carriers out there....how many of those are undocked and actively in use at any given time? How many are owned by individuals, versus shared among corpmates? How many are in storage as backups for when a person loses a carrier in a fleet battle and needs a quick replacement for the next battle, but are never accessed otherwise? This stuff needs to be taken into account before naming the carrier as the end-all uber ship of choice. Numbers are not enough.
P.S. Truthfully, I wouldn't consider a carrier as being the end-all goal of my EVE existence....they are far too bulky and slow for my everyday enjoyment. ;)
Slackers - We came. We saw. We took our sweet time. |
|
Edison Frisk
Minmatar Black Sea Industries Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 18:17:00 -
[2741]
This is by far the most ridiculous proposal yet.
Since when does it take .2 of a second to destroy a BS with fighters anyways unless you are in a mothership.
Absurd, I am lost for words I really am.
refine...*click*
|
Anacori
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 18:25:00 -
[2742]
Edited by: Anacori on 24/10/2007 18:25:38 I do not really care about carriers atm but if ccp dares to render a 1+ year old shipclass useless they are crossing a border. That border is: Neverever touch a running system.
What will the next change be? Oh a Frigg can not kill a BS? Time to dimish all BS Tanks.
That is not balancing that is b++++++t.
Some people should be put at balancing serverload and lag. That would be usefull.
Well would not be the first MMO i quit cos it is nerfed to ****. After two years maybe Anarchy Online has recovered from the Nerf-by-stupids and is fun to play again.
|
Jack Target
Koshaku Interstellar Starbase Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 18:27:00 -
[2743]
I agree with CCP: there should not be an "end game ship". Unfortunately, carriers are just that.
Many players are over-reacting to the proposed changes. However, they forget they have superb skills and these can be used for other purposes - they have not 'wasted' their time or ISK.
I am glad CCP are not caving in to the pressure, and are thinking clearly.
Diversity, teamwork, and no "end game ship" are noble goals.
|
Edison Frisk
Minmatar Black Sea Industries Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 18:40:00 -
[2744]
Edited by: Edison Frisk on 24/10/2007 18:43:02 *edit* cant be bothered to argue, ccp just dont do it
|
Gzashon
Terra Incognita Dark Matter Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 19:14:00 -
[2745]
A classic example of the "we will make you play how we want you to play" mentality.
A clear sign that something is very wrong in developerland as far as both the thought processes and the ability / motivation to listen to players.
Anyone can go out and find a ton of videos featuring small gangs (as few as 3 ships, none bigger than a BS) demolishing a carrier that gets stuck alone.
Most people understand that a carrier (whether it is a real navy aircraft carrier, or a fantasy space carrier) is an offensive tool, something nasty with teeth. Yes, it should demolish a single battleship quickly. Yes, it can launch and direct more than FIVE (!) of its fighters at once.
A carrier is a skill path that takes more than a year of training, during which few intermediate gains are realized--something that only a minority of players choose to do. There's a reason 95% of people aren't running around in them.
I don't have a carrier, my alt is still training for one. If I did, if i had spent 1+ years on my main training for it...i would be furious with this.
|
Kailiao
The Black Fleet
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 19:53:00 -
[2746]
Originally by: Cadela Fria Edited by: Cadela Fria on 24/10/2007 05:50:34
Originally by: New Devblog
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.
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.
Well thought out post, except for a few things....
1 Ishtar doesn't have 1.1 mill hp
2 Ishtar doesn't have the dps of like 3-4 gank bs's
3 Ishtar isn't immune to all forms of ew
4 Ishtar can't remote rep godly amounts of shield/armor
Mom's/carrier's/dreads schould only be used for pos killin, and 0.0 fleet battles/support.
It's the outher uses people are exploiting, and thus the nerf, imho.
|
Inturist
Nuclear Reactor Inc INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 20:20:00 -
[2747]
SO , CCP still doesn't care about paying customers eh ? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Constantinee
Caldari Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 20:40:00 -
[2748]
funny
after 3k posts ccp still hasent even thought about changing their minds.
This goes to show that people who design the game truley do not care for their customers no matter how much they act like they do. --------------------
FRICK
|
WardogX
Outkasts
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 20:52:00 -
[2749]
Designers worry about design.
Owners worry about money... once this takes effect and people actually quit and they take a serious loss in profits and have to make cut backs on their designers... then the designers will worry about money too.
|
K'reemy G'udness
Gimme Gimme Gimme
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 21:35:00 -
[2750]
page 109 sniper
Sincerely, K'reemy ---
|
|
Miasia
Konstrukteure der Zukunft
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 21:38:00 -
[2751]
Edited by: Miasia on 24/10/2007 21:38:25 As i read the DevBlog about the new Tech2 BSes i instantly thought: "Oh .. they try to curry favor at their customers."
So its absolutly logic, that the Kronos(Gallente T2 "Mission"-BS) is one of the best T2 BSes. Most carriers in game are Thanatos'es (seen in one of the Econ Dev Blogs).
|
James Don
KDM Corp Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 21:39:00 -
[2752]
Edited by: James Don on 24/10/2007 21:40:55
Originally by: Constantinee funny
after 3k posts ccp still hasent even thought about changing their minds.
This goes to show that people who design the game truley do not care for their customers no matter how much they act like they do.
They did yesterday but its been lost.
http://myeve.eve-online.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=514
For the Lazy this change isnt coming in the suggested current form, a change will come in future. |
Clorthos
Gallente Tau Ceti Global Production Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 22:03:00 -
[2753]
so let me get this correct.
I have trained up 3 accounts to fly carriers and use for corp/alliance and in effect I have had my accounts nerf batted into flying support bs.
In essence I have wasted 12 months (x 3 for the accounts) at least of training primary secondary and other support skills to effectivly fly a carrier in all aspects.
If the ships were going to be so useless I would not of worried about training up multiple accounts and stuck with one account to go do missions instead of trying to take advantage of pvp and other aspects of 00 life.
This is exactly what drove me from everquest when some community guy that helped run eqtraders got a job as a dev and the permission to overhual the potion making skill, killing 3 years of tradeskilling ability forcing us to relearn potions and recipies.
good job on getting a promition or chance at a dev job, but remaking the game in your vision is not the customer's vision. Some changes are fine but complete system overhaul compounded with the fact that carriers have had sig size increased so they take max damage is just putting everyone as lambs for the slaughter.
540 usd I want a refund on my accounts for the year training the skills needed if you go through on this.
|
Ztrain
Evolution Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 22:20:00 -
[2754]
Yes their not going to nurf it today they plan to nerf it in 3 months. Basically to sum it up everthing the carrier will do now is removed. All the bonuses hangers, bay's, number of drones deployable are all removed from the carrier. All thoes options will be put in to modules.
You will now have to pick and choose what you want your carrier to do but everything that it does now will not fit at the same time. It also increases the over all cost of carriers and motherships because now you will have to build additional capital modules just to get functions back on your carrier.
Z
Originally by: CCP Zulupark That's the rough idea, yes. We still have in no way started thinking about what modules to introduce, what they would do or anything of the likes, but the idea is that.
|
Daelin Blackleaf
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 22:47:00 -
[2755]
Originally by: Miasia
So its absolutly logic, that the Kronos(Gallente T2 "Mission"-BS) is one of the best T2 BSes. Most carriers in game are Thanatos'es (seen in one of the Econ Dev Blogs).
Firstly the Golem with the new torps will do damage comparable to a megathron from 30km.
Secondly the reason there are so many Thanatos being flown is that people are generally idiots who can't see past their DPS (or they just like the look of them / only fly Gallente).
250 Extra DPS is nothing compared to 2000 more normalized rep which is what you get on the Chimera.
|
Komaito
AFK
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 23:09:00 -
[2756]
Originally by: Ztrain Yes their not going to nurf it today they plan to nerf it in 3 months. Basically to sum it up everthing the carrier will do now is removed. All the bonuses hangers, bay's, number of drones deployable are all removed from the carrier. All thoes options will be put in to modules.
You will now have to pick and choose what you want your carrier to do but everything that it does now will not fit at the same time. It also increases the over all cost of carriers and motherships because now you will have to build additional capital modules just to get functions back on your carrier.
Z
Hmmh well... If I understood the 2nd carrier dev blog correctly, the intention of the devs is to encourage a greater variety of shiptypes.
But if pilots just have to refit their carriers to perform various roles, why not use some differently fitted carriers in a gang?
I can't see how carrier specialization via modules encourages the usage of more different ships. ------------------------------------ radiation... too much radiation... |
Elmicker
Black Sea Industries Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 23:10:00 -
[2757]
Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf Secondly the reason there are so many Thanatos being flown is that people are generally idiots who can't see past their DPS (or they just like the look of them / only fly Gallente).
Or because capital armour tanks were superior at the time they trained it, but they still wanted the ability to rep shields for poses?
Or because it's more likely for a gallente pilot to have drone interfacing 5?
Or because it's the most versatile, with the biggest drone bay?
you fail as hard as CCP at looking beyond the obvious.
|
Ztrain
Evolution Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 23:17:00 -
[2758]
Edited by: Ztrain on 24/10/2007 23:17:36
Originally by: Komaito Hmmh well... If I understood the 2nd carrier dev blog correctly, the intention of the devs is to encourage a greater variety of shiptypes.
But if pilots just have to refit their carriers to perform various roles, why not use some differently fitted carriers in a gang?
I can't see how carrier specialization via modules encourages the usage of more different ships.
Originally by: CCP garbage Pt.2 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).
Read a little closer.
Z
Originally by: CCP Zulupark That's the rough idea, yes. We still have in no way started thinking about what modules to introduce, what they would do or anything of the likes, but the idea is that.
|
Silmaire
Viper Squad Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 23:17:00 -
[2759]
humm .. makes me think, is there any feature in eve that didnt had the nerf ? so many things in eve that are unbalanced, common .. put that + ur a minmatar pilot, then the capital piece of junk you had, will only look awesome to look .
were talking about a billion(s) ship . billions that takes time to gather, time that is spent to gather that isk . i completly understand the word pwnmobile is not to be considered in eve, like moms are .. but carriers ?
did ccp ever consider in lowering the build needs for capitals ? to compensate in anyway the pilot/customer for the nerfs ? i really think that customer should be compesated in any way they could be . if a pwnmobile costs 40bil, if its not a pwnmobile anymore, why still does it costs 40bil ?
the issue here is not the nerf or whatever .. is really the isk, time customers spend to gather that sort of resources to buy/build the damm ships . if you wanna nerf, go ahead .. but at least compensate in any way the damage done to players . this is called respect and consideration for the customer that keeps this 4 years game alive .
nerf caps, lower the build reqs ...
put it this way.. cheaper to have 4 carriers camping a system, than actually buying a mothership for that purpose . insane ....
|
SawMan
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 23:44:00 -
[2760]
ummmmmmmmm i dont see how in any way that a 30billion isk ship being flown by a character with 40mil sp SHOULDNT incinerate a 10mil sp character in a 100mil ship in .2 seconds... thats like saying OMG that 100mil ish battle ship incinerated by 300k frigate in .2 seconds! lets nerf battle ships. There is no reason a capital ship should not be able to defed its self. if you want this game 100% balanced give eveyone the same skills the same ship and the same guns then it will be balanced.
|
|
LordVodka
Earned In Blood Black Sun Cartel
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 02:01:00 -
[2761]
Originally by: Silmaire humm .. makes me think, is there any feature in eve that didnt had the nerf ? so many things in eve that are unbalanced, common .. put that + ur a minmatar pilot, then the capital piece of junk you had, will only look awesome to look .
were talking about a billion(s) ship . billions that takes time to gather, time that is spent to gather that isk . i completly understand the word pwnmobile is not to be considered in eve, like moms are .. but carriers ?
did ccp ever consider in lowering the build needs for capitals ? to compensate in anyway the pilot/customer for the nerfs ? i really think that customer should be compesated in any way they could be . if a pwnmobile costs 40bil, if its not a pwnmobile anymore, why still does it costs 40bil ?
the issue here is not the nerf or whatever .. is really the isk, time customers spend to gather that sort of resources to buy/build the damm ships . if you wanna nerf, go ahead .. but at least compensate in any way the damage done to players . this is called respect and consideration for the customer that keeps this 4 years game alive .
nerf caps, lower the build reqs ...
put it this way.. cheaper to have 4 carriers camping a system, than actually buying a mothership for that purpose . insane ....
That doesn't change a thing fo people who have already trained and invested in our ships.... That just would effect future pilots which is pointless cause they will no the ships abilitys before they buy it are limited. It does nothing to a person like me who already trained hte ****ing skills and spent hte ****ing isk....
|
BIRDofPREY
Minmatar KDM Corp Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 02:22:00 -
[2762]
Edited by: BIRDofPREY on 25/10/2007 02:24:49 I can believe I read the Whole Fecking Thread....
Two words CCP DRUG TESTING
|
Komaito
AFK
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 06:19:00 -
[2763]
Edited by: Komaito on 25/10/2007 06:20:51
Originally by: Ztrain Edited by: Ztrain on 24/10/2007 23:17:36
Originally by: Komaito Hmmh well... If I understood the 2nd carrier dev blog correctly, the intention of the devs is to encourage a greater variety of shiptypes.
But if pilots just have to refit their carriers to perform various roles, why not use some differently fitted carriers in a gang?
I can't see how carrier specialization via modules encourages the usage of more different ships.
Originally by: CCP garbage Pt.2 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).
Read a little closer.
Z
I was getting that.
I have just the impression that the proposed changes in the 2nd blog will not promote the usage of more different ship types in gangs, but of several differently fitted carriers.
If CCP is really pursuing the goal of a greater diversity of ships (not carrier fittings), the changes would be meaningless in that regard.
But I guess time will tell... ------------------------------------ radiation... too much radiation... |
Khamal Jolstien
Caldari Lucky Hydra Corp SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 06:30:00 -
[2764]
Hm, I think I can recall the same thing being said about the ECM nerf, Drake nerf, Nos nerf.
Adapt, or die.
|
CHAOS100
Momentum. The Reckoning.
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 06:46:00 -
[2765]
Originally by: Khamal Jolstien Hm, I think I can recall the same thing being said about the ECM nerf, Drake nerf, Nos nerf.
Adapt, or die.
yes there were 3000 posts in response to each of those. --------------
|
infinityshok
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 06:48:00 -
[2766]
It is time the devs realize this idea has ****ed off a significant portion of the Eve community and give in. At this point the only recourse is for some dev to make a new blog saying they've decided to leave the carriers/MSs the way they are and they're sorry for vocally expressing their ideas during a drug-induced stupor. Everyone wants to get back to playing the game and stop spamming all 843 threads bashing this idea than only a lobotomized poo-slinging tree monkey could appreciate.
|
Piper Krul
Union Of Xtreme Military M. PIRE
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 07:53:00 -
[2767]
I would like to say that I have read 109 pages worth of posts on this issue, but that would be a lie. However, after 3 or 4 pages, I already have a big knot in the pit of my stomach.
To put my opinion in the forefront, I have played this game for three years, and I like my carrier just how it is. I did not put almost a years worth of training into this ship and its modules to fly a big battlefield doctor and drone giver. Sure, I can do the logistics stuff when it is required, but honestly I shouldn't be forced to. I can support the fleet, but I also should be able to pwn 3 or 4 3-month players in battleships.
I urge you to not cater to the vast majority who have not invested the time or effort to fly this ship. Let them spend their years to reach the level I am, and don't punish me for my skillpoint total.
Please spend your effort to appease those who have supported you for so many years. Poll everyone who has been a subscriber for 2 or more years, and I guarantee most will tell you to spend your efforts on reducing lag, to make the game more enjoyable and responsive. Forget the nerfbat, and the new ships, until you fix what really needs fixing.
Regards,
Piper Krul
|
LT IRIS
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 10:16:00 -
[2768]
U HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING!!!! i dont think the drone bays r big enough for carriers and u want to take away the only defence carriers got it takes 10 battleships to = carrier. If the carrier can take a battleship down in 0.2 sec then he shouldnt be in the fight in the first place ITS THE BATTLESHIPS that need support in there fleets not carriers its a CAPITALSHIP! ccp always talks about not getting involved ingame affairs LEAVE IT ALONE
|
Lcdr Welcome
Blue Labs Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 10:40:00 -
[2769]
Originally by: Piper Krul I would like to say that I have read 109 pages worth of posts on this issue, but that would be a lie. However, after 3 or 4 pages, I already have a big knot in the pit of my stomach.
To put my opinion in the forefront, I have played this game for three years, and I like my carrier just how it is. I did not put almost a years worth of training into this ship and its modules to fly a big battlefield doctor and drone giver. Sure, I can do the logistics stuff when it is required, but honestly I shouldn't be forced to. I can support the fleet, but I also should be able to pwn 3 or 4 3-month players in battleships.
I urge you to not cater to the vast majority who have not invested the time or effort to fly this ship. Let them spend their years to reach the level I am, and don't punish me for my skillpoint total.
Please spend your effort to appease those who have supported you for so many years. Poll everyone who has been a subscriber for 2 or more years, and I guarantee most will tell you to spend your efforts on reducing lag, to make the game more enjoyable and responsive. Forget the nerfbat, and the new ships, until you fix what really needs fixing.
Regards,
Piper Krul
qft ------------------- Lcdr Welcome
|
Annihilator X
Caldari Outkasts
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 11:06:00 -
[2770]
Originally by: Khamal Jolstien Hm, I think I can recall the same thing being said about the ECM nerf, Drake nerf, Nos nerf.
Adapt, or die.
Battlecruisers dont costs 1-30 billion isk. Battlecruisers can be trained for in less then 1 month not several months and nearly 1 billion isk in skills. ECM and NOS are global nurfs that effect all ships in the game that used them.. thats a game balance... this proposed nurf here is targetd at people who wasted all there time on what now will become a broken logistic ship that wont even be effective at that (at least carriers will become that).
In reality this is no nurf different from any other... but the fact that this one wasted several billion isk and several million sp of several thousand people in EVE this hits us all below the belt. This balance should have been considerd before the ship was ever introduced so you didnt waste your players REAL world time! If you add this you should reimburse people all that skills training time and cash.
Right now this game is ridiculous anyway... capital ships cant hurt little ships without drones or fighters. However a lil frigate can total immunize a carrier (not motherships but a carrier)... basically little eats big.. big cant eat little... makes no sense. Thats a direct result of devs trying to make it user friendly to new players and not to old players. Its the old players that keep the pay checks flowing... if they leave new players wont join a community that has no players. Its a double edge sword.
I think carriers are getting nurfed because motherships are just to powerful in .4-.1 space... no bubbles in "upper low sec" and they can be free to never get scrammed or dampened. Carriers are pieces of trash in comparison for that reason (they DONT need a nurf.. that CANT do it all.. they are gimp now as it is).. nurfing carriers is ridiculous. A carrier may require same skills as a Mom but they are not even close in ability. I am not saying nurf moms and leave carriers alone either... nurfing anyone who spent 30 billion+ isk on something is ridiculous. I was saving up for one.. I am glad I never made it to my goal.
Also that dev response about saying the nurf will come in 3 months but not as it was explained before.... They make mention of how motherships/carriers can "do it all" and they should not be allowed to do that. ALL drone ships can "seemingly" do it all.. even on a battleship and battlecruiser ship level... and they can ALSO all die easy against skilled players (including carriers and moms) This almost seems like at the route of this the devs are hating the idea of drones in general after all these years of adding them to the game.. and you are taking it out on carriers/moms cause they can use the most at one time and tank better. If you nurf carriers into becoming giant floating logistic ships then you should give carriers immunity to EW like the mom... but if you do that.. whats the point of the mom? There is no "easy" answer and it should ALL be left alone... This is turned into more of a philosophical debate in which players are going to be penalized on some random experiment based on some random philosphy of how it "should be" or how it "could be".
If you want people to use other "end game" ships.....boost dreads and titans.... leave carriers and moms alone.... better year boost carrier and leave mom alone. Or how about this... invent NEW capital ships to pick from... if we had options on the capital level like we did for frigates and cruisers.... no one would be ALL going for the same carrier/mom as their end game goal.
|
|
Lord Timelord
Artifex Dynamics New Eden Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 11:54:00 -
[2771]
Originally by: Robet Katrix About 2-3 Months ago I was flying my carrier and i got caught.
we had a 15 man IAC gang coming through 49-u. (this was shortly after we had lost sedith's aeon) we only had about 7 in gang, 2 command ships a inty or two and something else. we used a claymore as bait figuring he could tank them until i exited warp and got remote reps on him.
Plan fell apart. i intiated warp early but claymore died as i locked him. the other 2 inties died as inties tend to do and it quickly became a chimera and an Eos vs. a 15 man gang. With only shield transfers i couldn't keep the Eos alive forever, he died after we had killed a phoon a rapier and something else because of his webs + my drones.
Now im trapped. 13 hostiles (more incoming from IAC territory) holding me in place a blasted caracal dampening me and no support anywheres close.
I have a good tank and they dont ahve much DPS so im survivng for the minute. i drop 12 t2 light drones (twice) but kill them with my own faction smartbombs. third time i managed to get them out and not kill them and they auto-aggro a cruiser. i wait a minute and figure hes probly tanking them. Recall them try mediums which auto aggro on an interceptor. recall them. I MANAGE TO LOCK a battlecruiser who gets in close. drop 3 web drones and 9 heavies. put my warp disruptor on him. they shoot my heavy drones down. i launch fighters. by this point hes out of warp disruptor range and all of a sudden i have lost all my fighters for 3 minutes while he takes them on a ride.
their support is continuing to grow.
i eventually get my fighters back and switch to sentries. sentries autoaggro something and pop it. im so happy ;p. they then shoot something else but i dont know what. it says their fighting so i let them do their thing.
they were attacking the damp caracal! yay. he warps out. im locking **** now. start shooting at their dictor with sentries he out-tracks them. try to switch. sentries are out of range. activate smartbombs and try to kill them so i can launch heavies and web drones. arazu just came in. im screwed. damp caracal is back now too.
wait 5 minutes under more fire tank is still holding. drop heavies and let them run loose.
10 minutes later friendly fleet comes to save me.
now.
with your changes what kind of defense do you think 5 drones would offer me vs. the 12 i had before?
Quoted for speaking like a TRUE carrier pilot! If the forthcoming changes in 3+ Months of time isn't thought out VERY carefully... CCP is liable to severely aggo a large part of the long-term, loyal player base. This might cause a large portion of them to leave the game in disgust.
I for one have been flying a carrier since January 2006. Think about that for a minute. That's one year and 10 Months! Do I really want to have something that I've sunk so much time, effort, isk, and sp into be delegated to a ship that I can't use solo if I so choose?
ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!! __________
My Corporation's Website
|
iiixiii
GREY COUNCIL Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 12:19:00 -
[2772]
carriers/motherships dont need a nerf!!! a lone carrier is a dead carrier... their easy to kill even if they use 15 fighters. So rendering them down to just 5 fighters is omfgwtfbbq.. am glad i dont fly one myself! would been a waste of time training for one if these changes goes live!
GREYC
iiixiii |
Lord Oz
Caldari Warrior Nation United SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 12:34:00 -
[2773]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
Originally by: pershphanie
Originally by: CCP Zulupark 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?
Motherships do more damage than a carrier.
Seriously dude. Witness protection program. Think about it.
If the reason for flying a mothership over a carrier is just that it does more damage, what's the change? It will still do more damage if it delegates the extra fighters it has over carriers?
Well it seems no matter what anyone says, youve made up your mind in doing the carrier nerf. And the end result is still the same, less damage. But I dont fly carriers anyway so GL everyone.
SKILL QUEUE It's on the "to do" list since, like, forever. Just do it already, ffs. It's not like it's rocket science... |
sia alexandria
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 14:33:00 -
[2774]
Aweful, horrible, nasty idea. Of course carriers should be able to kill Bs's, of course they should be better than killing. Of course it should take a specially outfitted Bs and/or several others to pose a serious threat to it.
This is what you get for you investment in time, isk and sp.
just like any other ship. more cost/Reqs = a better ship. this chage would be saying all ships should be noob frigs, cause why should people who have trained and spent more have an advantage! is ANYONE seriously arguing that!
carriers and moms are fine the way they are. they are not invincable. they are not an i win button, they are difficult to kill and they should be. if your going after a carrier/mom you should be fitted, trained and have a plan to counter it.
i could go on forever. but this is not a good idea, ccp for the love of god abbandon these changes
|
Rachen Mysuna
Brotherhood of Polar Equation Mordus Angels
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 15:14:00 -
[2775]
Originally by: sia alexandria Aweful, horrible, nasty idea. Of course carriers should be able to kill Bs's, of course they should be better than killing. Of course it should take a specially outfitted Bs and/or several others to pose a serious threat to it.
This is what you get for you investment in time, isk and sp.
just like any other ship. more cost/Reqs = a better ship. this chage would be saying all ships should be noob frigs, cause why should people who have trained and spent more have an advantage! is ANYONE seriously arguing that!
carriers and moms are fine the way they are. they are not invincable. they are not an i win button, they are difficult to kill and they should be. if your going after a carrier/mom you should be fitted, trained and have a plan to counter it.
i could go on forever. but this is not a good idea, ccp for the love of god abbandon these changes
agree 100% on this one, just drop the changes CCP they are not needed nor wanted
|
Silent Justice
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 16:15:00 -
[2776]
Edited by: Silent Justice on 25/10/2007 16:15:20 ok, i have just read this since being away, and all i can say is, why? why are you thinking of doing it ccp? thought you changed carriers/MS so they could fight on the front, now your changing it back? i actually dont know what to say, apart from, for the love of god, dont nerf dreads too
|
RubberDuckey
Amarr UNITED STAR SYNDICATE Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 16:33:00 -
[2777]
Sorry CCP but Carrier Changes = Epic Fail
|
TheSard
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 16:50:00 -
[2778]
Great change CCP. It will force fleets to be balanced, not just carrier/mom ownage expresses.
|
Olli Hokkanen
Full Life Alternative
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 16:58:00 -
[2779]
Originally by: TheSard Great change CCP. It will force fleets to be balanced, not just carrier/mom ownage expresses.
go troll elsewhere, and post with your main
|
Malena Panic
Veto. Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 17:20:00 -
[2780]
Originally by: Olli Hokkanen go troll elsewhere, and post with your main
WTF? So now a dissenting opinion is a 'troll'? THIS is the disgusting sense of entitlement that makes all 110 pages of this thread stink to high heaven.
|
|
Quanteeri
Invicta.
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 17:34:00 -
[2781]
Edited by: Quanteeri on 25/10/2007 17:36:15 I love this idea so much I want to hump it in the ear!
Thank you CCP for trying to bring combat back to the diverse fleet. |
|
CCP Wrangler
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 17:52:00 -
[2782]
Since we have another Dev Blog and thread on this, please continue the discussion in that thread.
Wrangler Community Manager EVE Online, CCP Games Email/Netfang
"The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it." |
|
|
|
|
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] |