EVE Search - CCP's proposed changes to carriers/motherships

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

CCP's proposed changes to carriers/motherships

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Arana Tellen Gallente The Blackguard Wolves Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2007.10.21 11:10:00 - [1] Edited by: Arana Tellen on 21/10/2007 11:10:17 http://myeve.eve-online.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=512 They can only control 5 fighters/drones at a time, they can delegate those 5 and get up to their original levels but only with other ships around. --------------------------------- Core 2 Duo E4300 1.8ghz @ 3ghz
Kurt Armstrong Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.10.21 11:14:00 - [2]
Lord Evangelian Gallente LEAP Corp	Posted - 2007.10.21 11:17:00 - [3] hehe, good for us no more gate camping MOMS and Carriers. Bad for them cos that means you dont even have to kill all fighters before popping them just the ones they control.... I dont know whether to luagh or cry... -----------------------------------------------------
DeadDuck Amarr Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.21 11:17:00 - [4] Very nice... to the people about to whine think in how this will benefit the lag aspect
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2007.10.21 11:18:00 - [5] Edited by: Le Skunk on 21/10/2007 11:18:33 Gutting for anyone whos a solo minded pilot A severe blow for low sec solo mothership pilots I dont fly a carrier (though i have one stopping my paperwork from flying away) Very annoying for those whove trained up for it More fiddling and tweaking with annoying drone controls SKUNK
Amarria Black Clan Anthraxx	Posted - 2007.10.21 11:18:00 - [6] Originally by: Lord Evangelian hehe, good for us no more gate camping MOMS and Carriers. Bad for them cos that means you dont even have to kill all fighters before popping them just the ones they control.... I dont know whether to luagh or cry... Except for the part where they can still do the whole disco ball of death routine. This affects actual carrier / mom pilots and not the gankbears.
Lucifer Fellblade Ore Mongers R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.10.21 11:19:00 - [7] So now along with needing twice as many damps for the same effect, you now need 4 times as many people for the same damage. I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE CCP! VERY GOOD! ------
Arana Tellen Gallente The Blackguard Wolves Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2007.10.21 11:20:00 - [8] Edited by: Arana Tellen on 21/10/2007 11:21:30 Moved upstairs. --------------------------------- Core 2 Duo E4300 1.8ghz @ 3ghz
Stellar Vix State War Academy	Posted - 2007.10.21 11:20:00 - [9] end of the capitol era? SWA PVP
rig0r 0utbreak	Posted - 2007.10.21 11:21:00 - [10] Originally by: DeadDuck Very nice... to the people about to whine think in how this will benefit the lag aspect Nerfing ships is not the answer to lag reduction. Sigh.
DeadDuck Amarr Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.21 11:22:00 - [11] Originally by: rig0r Originally by: DeadDuck Very nice... to the people about to whine think in how this will benefit the lag aspect Nerfing ships is not the answer to lag reduction. Sigh. In the case of drone spamage .. it is...
Laboratus Gallente BGG League of Abnormal Gentlemen	Posted - 2007.10.21 11:23:00 - [12] What I want to know is what will the fighters do once the ships directing them die? Do they go inactive? Do they automatically return to drone bay? ___ P.S. Post with your main. Mind control and tin hats
PhalHell Minmatar Rubra Libertas Militia	Posted - 2007.10.21 11:23:00 - [13] I can understand that they want to cut the number of fighter to avoid low sec abuse of the MS. Point is : how is the carrier/MS supposed to defend itself when ganked by BS'es ? The opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of my corps, not necessarily mine, and probably not necessary.
Arana Tellen Gallente The Blackguard Wolves Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2007.10.21 11:24:00 - [14] Originally by: Laboratus What I want to know is what will the fighters do once the ships directing them die? Do they go inactive? Do they automatically return to drone bay? return. --------------------------------- Core 2 Duo E4300 1.8ghz @ 3ghz
Splagada Minmatar Tides of Silence Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.21 11:24:00 - [15] why dumb down carriers like that... bringing a carrier into the battle is already a risk, and thats the only point of bringing it instead of safespotting/assigning fighters give us same remote rep range as fighter control range then :p yay for 500dps carrier :/ carrier costs quite a lot, needs cyno, etc so youll just see moros+ogre 2s camping gates now i guess? thats to prevent the "omg mom at gate" weekly post? lowsec is wild wild west, we live with it ------ Proud Janitor of Tides of Silence
Arana Tellen Gallente The Blackguard Wolves Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2007.10.21 11:24:00 - [16] Originally by: PhalHell I can understand that they want to cut the number of fighter to avoid low sec abuse of the MS. Point is : how is the carrier/MS supposed to defend itself when ganked by BS'es ? It's a cap ship, have 2 ships to assign ships to it. They obviously REALLY dont want you to fly these things solo. --------------------------------- Core 2 Duo E4300 1.8ghz @ 3ghz
DeadDuck Amarr Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.21 11:26:00 - [17] Originally by: PhalHell I can understand that they want to cut the number of fighter to avoid low sec abuse of the MS. Point is : how is the carrier/MS supposed to defend itself when ganked by BS'es ? Maybe Motherships/Carriers are supposed to fly around with suport ??? The same happens with Dreads... Do you deploy a dread fleet without support ???
darth solo Celestial Apocalypse Insurgency	Posted - 2007.10.21 11:28:00 - [18] Originally by: Laboratus What I want to know is what will the fighters do once the ships directing them die? Do they go inactive? Do they automatically return to drone bay? just what they normally do i imagine... sit there totally inactive without accepting any of ur commands. d solo.
Plave Okice Gallente 0utlaws	Posted - 2007.10.21 11:32:00 - [19] Originally by: CCP Zulupark Well, we have an idea, and before you go ballistic remember that this is an idea and weære still working on it: Quick, let's all whine before they actually decide what they're going to do.
Taka Caldari Quam Singulari	Posted - 2007.10.21 11:34:00 - [20] so are they gonna make it so that the carrier pilots fighter skills work on delegated fighters?
Iyanah Minmatar Mining Munitions and Mayhem R i s e	Posted - 2007.10.21 11:35:00 - [21] Originally by: Le Skunk Edited by: Le Skunk on 21/10/2007 11:18:33 Gutting for anyone whos a solo minded pilot A severe blow for low sec solo mothership pilots I dont fly a carrier (though i have one stopping my paperwork from flying away) Very annoying for those whove trained up for it More fiddling and tweaking with annoying drone controls SKUNK indeed. it's dissapointing that carriers will only be able to control 5 fighters at a time, though they could surely be able to launch 5, delegate them, launch another 5, and so on. this feels like a much better use of them, but a carrier would be expected to be amid a swarm of fighters. capitals should only really be truly effective in a fleet. it's what they're designed to do, and we know CCP hate (as do most players) the idea of a solopwnmobile. besides, there's alot to be said for a carrier, with a swarm of escort frigates moving towards the enemy, each frigate leading a squadron of fighters. the image alone is pretty awesome. ========================================== Iy please remember: I AM a sarcastic ******* and nothing i say has ever represented the thoughts or feelings of my corp, alliance, or anyone really. read
EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.10.21 11:36:00 - [22] While I agree with the change because it should stop the solo romping carrier or mothership, im not sure how this is going to reduce the 200+ fighter clouds that lag out a node entirely?
Lara Roxx Gallente Valkyries of Valhalla	Posted - 2007.10.21 11:37:00 - [23] i can understand the change, its mainly to nerf mother ships in low sec, as you cant deligate control to fighters. so they become more vunarble. but for carriers its quite a big blow imo, they rely on support atm in low sec ( or that is why my corp do ) we keep them alive on the battle feild. etc etc. i was thinking instead of limiiting to 5 how about 10? max that a carreir and momcan control. still be quite a heavy nerf to a mom as it cant field its max dps by its self yet carrriers can still have some protection. anyone else feel the same about my views? ( yes i own a carrier a nidhoggur ) ____________________________ \|________Sig in a Box_________\|
Splagada Minmatar Tides of Silence Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.21 11:38:00 - [24] Edited by: Splagada on 21/10/2007 11:39:02 allow carriers to carry pilots then::: and give them a bigger ship hold so we're back at carrier idea being a ship carrier, instead of a droneboat add a capital nos, some more slots for ecm support etc theres no freaking reason that with this change, a drake can tank a single carrier non stop :/ 580 dps is a real mess for a capital designed for frontlines :/ ------ Proud Janitor of Tides of Silence
Orogaldeo	Posted - 2007.10.21 11:39:00 - [25] so you're basicly saying you're giving mommyship only 5 fighters to control, and that hey have to get 3 more ships to control the other 15 fighters? god, you're really good at killing most of my long-term skillplans after all, it's sound like a good idea
Arana Tellen Gallente The Blackguard Wolves Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2007.10.21 11:40:00 - [26] Originally by: EdFromHumanResources While I agree with the change because it should stop the solo romping carrier or mothership, im not sure how this is going to reduce the 200+ fighter clouds that lag out a node entirely? Because you need 2 none drone ships per carrier and 3 per mothership to launch all your fighters, their release is also staggered. --------------------------------- Core 2 Duo E4300 1.8ghz @ 3ghz
Ingle Sco	Posted - 2007.10.21 11:40:00 - [27] Its a stupid idea for carrier they have been nerfed since their introduction, now they want to push that even further. If anything the carrier should be left alone as its not a pawn mobile, mommy's on the other hand could be nerfed this way to say 10 fighters in low sec to stop gate ganking.
ElfeGER Black Eclipse Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.10.21 11:41:00 - [28] great more t1 frig spamming more ships required, same amount of drones, more lag = great fix?? just reduce the number of drones while keeping the dps the same for carriers (=dmg and hp bonus on fighters per carrier lvl) there are simple ways of countering drone spamming (dd, smartbombs)
Luigi Galvani GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.10.21 11:41:00 - [29] This is absolutely ********. Assigning fighters is buggy as hell, they take forever to get to the person under the best of conditions. In a major fleet battle they will now be totally useless.
Iyanah Minmatar Mining Munitions and Mayhem R i s e	Posted - 2007.10.21 11:43:00 - [30] Originally by: Splagada Edited by: Splagada on 21/10/2007 11:39:02 allow carriers to carry pilots then::: and give them a bigger ship hold so we're back at carrier idea being a ship carrier, instead of a droneboat add a capital nos, some more slots for ecm support etc theres no freaking reason that with this change, a drake can tank a single carrier non stop :/ 580 dps is a real mess for a capital designed for frontlines :/ I like the idea of multi-crew carriers, this is a way around it, needing multiple pilots to launch additional fighters. of course, how this would work would be a little tough. the control of modules and the ship itself would be something that would need alot of work in order to, well, work. ========================================== Iy please remember: I AM a sarcastic ******* and nothing i say has ever represented the thoughts or feelings of my corp, alliance, or anyone really. read

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.