| 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.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 .. 93 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |