EVE Search - carrier, moms nerf incoming

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

carrier, moms nerf incoming

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 .. 15 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Retaxis	Posted - 2007.10.22 18:30:00 - [271] Hey... The Rorqual is the new mothership... Hehe. Clone bay, shield transport bonus. Great drones... Why do we even need carriers anymore ? Just get rid of 'em. Blob a couple of Rorquals with a some Moros' & you have a better unit anyway. What's all the excitement about ? (sarcasm, all of it, please don't flame me)
Drist Grettistak	Posted - 2007.10.22 18:33:00 - [272] If anything Carriers need more power not less What a stupid idea
Gargh Ahhwell Caldari Grettistak	Posted - 2007.10.22 18:36:00 - [273] Originally by: Drist If anything Carriers need more power not less What a stupid idea NERF CCP NERF CCP NERF CCP no seriously this change will just alienate alot of the playerbase Life dont talk too me about life.
Zaratustra Arrogance Unlimited	Posted - 2007.10.22 18:53:00 - [274] As a carrier pilot, I feel I have to weigh in on the issue. My first carrier (on carrier #2) was built within weeks of the Red Moon Rising release going live. The corp I was in at the time was about 50 members strong, and we mined our little usually-PvP assess off for weeks in advance to put that BPO in the oven as fast as we possibly could. We sat through the bug where carrier BPO's couldn't be installed in low-sec stations, twiddling our thumbs while CCP took their own sweet time to fix the issue. The result? One of the first carriers to grace the server, and one which we put into immediate use. While everyone else was PoS hugging in their carriers, we used our carrier as a front-line 0.0 fighter in small gangs, well before the global HP buff that vastly increased capital ship HP. 387 kills later, the carrier finally bit the dust to a very well executed trap in a low-sec system that I was goofing around in. A week later, I bought my second carrier, which is still with me to this day. I love carriers as they are currently implemented in EVE. They aren't solo pwnmobiles by any means. Yes, they do a lot of damage...to battlecruisers and up. Yes, they have a large tank...compared to other non-capital ships. Yes, they have very nice logistics capabilities...at the cost of some front-line survivability. Reading these changes, frankly, I'm shocked. There are two things going on here that need addressing. Issue #1 - Taking the time to assign, re-assign, assing, re-assign, assign, re-assign fighters in a lagged out system (which we find even in empire with only TWENTY PILOTS in-system at the time) is going to increase frustration on the part of the carrier pilots several fold. This is a game. It's supposed to be fun. I can't see anything remotely fun about solely paying attention to who is calling for fighters at any given moment. Paying attention to that, AND who needs repping, AND what the primary/secondary targets are, AND if you're being locked/targetted/scrammed/etc... is a lot to deal with. So, to boil Issue #1 down - you are increasing frustration levels without truly affecting any other change. You're going to force carriers into larger and larger gangs, simply so that there are equitable numbers of pilots to support the number of fighters that can be deployed, thus increasing lag, thus magnifying the frustration level as the fighters you assigned 7 minutes ago still haven't responded because EVE is operating at slideshow speeds. Or, when operating in a small-gang format, you are at times not realizing the carrier's full potential due to a lack of supporting ships. Issue #2 - You're taking a billion isk ship, in the case of a carrier, and saying that if it is caught alone by a Dominix (a 60M isk ship), that you want it to be a somewhat even fight. A carrier with 5 fighters (assuming Fighters IV, Carrier IV) does roughly 540 DPS, while being able to tank a hell of a lot. A dominix with 5 Ogre II's (assuming Gallente Drone Spec IV and Heavy Drones V) does 467 damage, while being able to tank well for a battleship. What you are saying is that this fight should be a draw. 5 fighters will not be able to break a Dominix's tank, if it is setup even remotely correctly. 5 Ogre II's will obviously face a similar situation as the fighters. Do you see the problem here? A 60 million isk specialized drone ship is able to perform the exact functions as a 1 billion isk specialized drone ship, if said 1 billion isk specialized drone ship is caught alone for whatever reason.
Zaratustra Arrogance Unlimited	Posted - 2007.10.22 18:54:00 - [275] What you are doing with this change is ignoring the holistic look at balance. You can't see the forest for the trees. You have, as another poster in this thread has said, pushed carriers to the frontlines (which I like, as that's how my carrier has always operated) with the several last "fixes". Can't assign fighters from inside a PoS shield, fine. Have a nifty new module to help out with frontline remote repping, sweet. Having to go through an aggravating and cumbersome process so that the pilot can achieve the EXACT same thing that they can do now, idiotic. If the way that fighters work stands as it is for now, the DPS from the carriers will drop EVEN IF you have all your fighters delegated to other gang mates, as the bonus to fighter damage from the Fighters skill does NOT apply to remotely assigned ships. This change adds neither fun, nor does it "fix" anything. You are simply encouraging more lag (more people in space to handle the additional fighters), which equates to more frustration (it's impossible to activate modules, assign drones, etc... with EVE running at a slideshow like it currently does in most fights), which equates to the ships being used less (who wants to deal with crappy mechanics that add frustration, not fun?). What this adds up to is a terrible design decision.
Dray Caldari Spartan Industries Cruel Intentions	Posted - 2007.10.22 18:54:00 - [276] Looks like the latest piece of balancing genius went down like a cheap h00ker in a room full of sailors. Balancing, hahhahahahaha, no really hahahahhahhahahahahhahhahahhahaha, no please stop it your killing me. Was this the result of a brainstorming session or a ***** pipe session. If thats the best you can come up with, dont bother, seriously.
Janus Veyron DarkStar Armada	Posted - 2007.10.22 18:55:00 - [277] Come on guys its not like a carrier is supposed to be a support and fleet logistics ship. Oh, wait a minute, it is!.
Juggernaut Kell Caldari 0utbreak	Posted - 2007.10.22 19:21:00 - [278] Edited by: Juggernaut Kell on 22/10/2007 19:23:54 Originally by: Jack Jombardo Edited by: Jack Jombardo on 21/10/2007 22:16:51 Originally by: Aaron Mirrorsaver you comparing the ability of a 20+ billion ship ability to defend it self with the ability of a tech 2 logistic ship? and saying that is ok if they are the same? o m g where is your problem? Logistic ship = gang suport Mother ship = fleet suport nowhere was mentioned that a MO was thought as solo-pwn-mobil! so yes, they ARE compareble! same role just much more expensive thought to be owned by Corps/Aliances and NOT by single players. EDIT: maybe that's the problem. Even 20 billion isn't expensive enough as there are to many solo people who can affort this without a Corp/Ally. Solution: rise the needed fuel-need to a value where it will be imposible for a single person to affort. or: remove the ability to fitt ANY offens exept Fighters. no smartbombs/turrets/launcher, no webber, no scrambler/jammer. just fleet-suport-modules and defens equip. Please just shut up Noob, you have NO idea what you are talking about.
Chief Judge	Posted - 2007.10.22 19:32:00 - [279] After initial negative attitude towards this change i thought for it for a while.. Motherships arent supposed to go solo.. there musnt be any ship in the game that can do that kind of pwnage solo and almost impossible to take down.. they have even better tanks than titans.. 1st they are logistic ships.. 2nd-ly everything else.. They are still powerfull even with this change and quite worthwile to fly.. With delegating fighters they still are powerfull.. U just have to get a few of your buddys with you(3-4 ppl..) Idea is not bad.. i would only add one thing.. With this change i would also allow caps in triage to field those 5 fighters/drones.. to have some of the offensive ability.. Basically change would be -100% on delegated drones.. This is only my humble opinion.. please confront opinions not eachother.. respect to all ppl that present their opinions in civilized manner..
kessah Blood Corsair's	Posted - 2007.10.22 20:15:00 - [280] Edited by: kessah on 22/10/2007 20:18:20 ITS ABOUT TIME! i knew i could trust CCP not to force me into capitals. sweet that means carriers only do.... what 250 dps now without assigning ?? hahaha yeah baby Nah seriously its brilliant idea - Carriers and Mom's shouldnt be flying solo nor lacking support - yes the mainstay ship of eve should always be the battleship. The middle ship of Eve and should be the most important. Carrier's should be vunerable to them as BS's are to frigs. -------------------------------------------------------- [Video] Forever Pirate 3

Trask Kilraen The Older Gamers R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.10.22 20:34:00 - [281] Originally by: kessah Edited by: kessah on 22/10/2007 20:18:20 ITS ABOUT TIME! i knew i could trust CCP not to force me into capitals. sweet that means carriers only do.... what 250 dps now without assigning ?? hahaha yeah baby Nah seriously its brilliant idea - Carriers and Mom's shouldnt be flying solo nor lacking support - yes the mainstay ship of eve should always be the battleship. The middle ship of Eve and should be the most important. Carrier's should be vunerable to them as BS's are to frigs. Uhh... they are now. I have been in involved in multiple carrier ganks where the gang attcking the carrier (even MULTIPLE carriers) were BS only. It isn't that hard really. Just keep the damage dealers aligned to warp, and they warp out as soon as the flshy red fighters get close. Easy peasy. Honestly, a solo carrier, or even a solo mom isn't THAT much of a threat to a BS gang if they are reasonably careful. Honestly, your garden variety nano-gang is more dangerous. ------------------------------------------
Neo Rainhart Caldari Leela's Lamas	Posted - 2007.10.22 20:46:00 - [282] Edited by: Neo Rainhart on 22/10/2007 20:49:54 Originally by: kessah ITS ABOUT TIME! i knew i could trust CCP not to force me into capitals. This Originally by: Benn Helmsman Yeah its so funny to see all these "elite" player just throwing their own "adapt or die" argument away like somebody would do with a leprosy infected limb. And that ♥♥♥
Hyakuchan Earth Federation Space Force	Posted - 2007.10.22 20:56:00 - [283] Edited by: Hyakuchan on 22/10/2007 21:06:56 Originally by: Trask Kilraen Honestly, a solo carrier, or even a solo mom isn't THAT much of a threat to a BS gang if they are reasonably careful. Honestly, your garden variety nano-gang is more dangerous. However, the mom is not at all concerned about the BS gang. The problem right now is that there is no serious threat to moms in lowsec. There is essentially nothing they fear. If a mom pilot and his cyano alt do their job right you simply cannot force a mom to die. They HAVE to **** up in order for you to kill them. The absence of consequences makes it overpowered. There is no consequence to lowsec ganking so eventually, played out to the logical conclusion, every player who chose to would put up a mom gatecamp of their own. Why the hell not? By taking away the massive solo dps advantage, they'll FORCE mom players to use the ship the way it was intended to be used: as the centerpiece of a fleet. Which means having a flotilla of players, or at least alts, on hand to command the fighter forces. That will make it harder to do, which in turn means fewer people will do it. People use moms as lowsec solo machines because it's easy to do and doesn't involve teamwork. For the people who actually play the game as CCP intended it to be played, this is not a nerf. Carriers and moms were SUPPOSED to be fleet ships, lending out fighters to gangmates and generally serving as a nexus of corp/fleet activity. -------------------------------------------------- "Only the stupid rob the poor."
Montol	Posted - 2007.10.22 21:14:00 - [284] Edited by: Montol on 22/10/2007 21:16:52 Alright, I'm just gonna get this off of my chest, this is a very bad idea as it is currently being presented. Why you may ask? simple, you wish to take a carrier, a CARRIER, a ship known in any culture for launching many smaller ships to do all of its work, whether up close or far away, and limit to only having 5 it can control itself. But ok, lets take a bit closer look from your standpoint. A carrier or mom can launch dozens of drones and incinerate a battleship pretty dang quick, sure it makes em sound like solopwnmobiles, but the fact is that a carrier can be easily ganked with anyone who thinks about it just a little bit, and as proven awhile back even mom's aren't invincible in low-sec, so why make them even more vulnerable when they take such a large effort to be built in the first place? Furthermore, having to delegate fighters to members 5 drones at a time is time consuming, and in the heat of battle is very costly. Also, if you aren't giving any kind of extra bonus to the fighter/drone damage of those under the direct control of the carrier pilot, then when carriers do solo runs(cause lets face it, a carrier cant always have a fleet with it)and gets jumped by some random BC or BS, now instead of being able to take it out n get out they can't even blow it up and will be a sitting duck for the guys friends to come along then poof, a multi-billion isk ship is taken out because it can't kill a 2 month old character. Another thing, what happens to the fighters you've assigned to a pilot and their ship is blown up? since it's stated that you can only launch 5, assign, then launch another 5,do they return to your bay, or just float in space waiting for you to scoop them up? To carry on, we'd now be only being able to launch 5 standard drones, why? it takes forever as is for a carrier to lock things smaller than a BS, and if your worried that a carrier can use 15 warrior II's to pop a frigate or cruiser instantly than you might as well remove the damage bonus to drones for the moros as it can essentially do the same thing with 5 drones. Anyways, enough about drones and all, lets look at the aspect you want us to use more with carriers, and that would be the 'keeping other ships alive' part. Now lets see, carriers are rather gimped as is for remote repping, mainly since using capital repairers on ships smaller than BS is a major waste of cap, and fitting smaller reppers means you have to be ramming the guy, and with the proposed nerf to only 5 standard drones we can no longer use hordes of rep drones and will actually be more encouraged to use fighters and just sit in a safespot, thus negating your desire for us to be healers, mainly because you'd be better off having a domi loaded with rep drones and remote reppers to play healer, or even just a logistics cruiser. The only solution I'd see to this is: a) for each race's carrier add a max launch amount per level for their races repair drone (ie thanatos would have a bonus to how many armor maintenance bots it can launch) b)give a bonus to the remote rep range of all repairers, not just the capital module c) combo of A and B, or d) leave max amount of regular drones alone and give bonus to all remote repairer ranges and voila, you have a remote repping carrier with 15 repair drones, your dream come true! Well... thats my two cents on the issue right now, if I feel up to it I'll add on later. Don't nerf the carrier!
djenghis jan Amarr Debiloff's Vanguard	Posted - 2007.10.22 21:24:00 - [285] I have no idea where this comes from, but i put a large amount of sp into cap ships and so far i have never fired a shot in anger. I once did a mission in one, but decided a bs is better at it. Now i do pos maintenance with it. So i say, remove the drone bay altogether, increase the cargo bay and call it a freighter with a jump drive. Basically that is what it is already.
Admiral Hunter	Posted - 2007.10.22 21:25:00 - [286] this idea is ******, i just spent the last 3 months preparing for my carrier and i find out ccp plans on changing the damn game again. If this nerf takes effect I want my money back(about 450 US) for the last 2 years because you just wasted all that time ive spent playing eve. Here is somthing you ccp developers should think about LEAVE THE DRONE SHIPS ALONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Drones are 1 of only 2 types of damage that can be stoped ie DRONES CAN BE KILLED!!!!! and all you **suckers that say this is a good idea you probally never flown a drone boat or you are so new you have no idea how combat works so SHUT IT.
SIr Urza	Posted - 2007.10.22 21:27:00 - [287] Edited by: SIr Urza on 22/10/2007 21:31:13 THIS IDEA IS STUPID!!! I mean a 2b ship (ship + fitting) and a 30b+fitting ship being able to defend itself only with 5 effing DRONES??? ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!! I hope you are cause that idea is BS!! and not the kid of BS you kill ingame! Soo you have your MILF (MOM) and you have the same ablity to fight as a Dominix?? ahh but yeah you can use fighter drones (sarcasm) SOO what? ONLY 5! how do you expect to defend a ship agains who know how many BS's, support and Capital ships with ONLY 5 DRONES!! If you go with this... I'll pull suicide ganks in Jita everyday untill the node crashes (lol) in a way to protest lol! Ahh and I'll want my money back for the time I spent Specing for such a USELESS SHIP (depends on you)
Breal D'nie	Posted - 2007.10.22 21:29:00 - [288] Edited by: Breal D''nie on 22/10/2007 21:32:24 i might not know what im talking about here, due to the fact that i can't/don't fly a carrier/mom, but it seems that the problem with the current status is that moms are camping low sec and just jump when a fleet that can kill them shows up. so it seems obvious that if you were to remove the EW immunity that would solve that prob. who would use a mom to solo in low sec then? from what i have read, carriers don't get used to solo nearly as much as mom's. don't nerf the dps, but but nerf the solo capability of the moms and ppl would be alot happier. Thoughts/oppinions? EDIT: oh, btw how much does a mom really cost? it seems every time there is a post with a price it goes up by 1B?!
SIr Urza	Posted - 2007.10.22 21:33:00 - [289] Edited by: SIr Urza on 22/10/2007 21:34:03 Originally by: Breal D'nie i might not know what im talking about here, due to the fact that i can't/don't fly a carrier/mom, but it seems that the problem with the current status is that moms are camping low sec and just jump when a fleet that can kill them shows up. so it seems obvious that if you were to remove the EW immunity that would solve that prob. who would use a mom to solo in low sec then? from what i have read, carriers don't get used to solo nearly as much as mom's. don't nerf the dps, but but nerf the solo capability of the moms and ppl would be alot happier. Thoughts/oppinions? Then what's the point of spending 30b (only in the ship) if you can buy 30 carriers for the same price that will be able to do (ergo NOT DO) the same crap as a MoM? EDIT: If you lookign for prices on MoMs just look at the selling forums...
Crystal Starbreeze The Ankou	Posted - 2007.10.22 21:36:00 - [290] 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 10+ 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 <b>SHOULD HAVE</b> to effectively use a carrier/motheship and survive in front line battle, you are looking at a minimum investment of around: <b>Carrier</b>: 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. <b>Mothership</b>: 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. <i>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> 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.

OSughhi Romanian Army of ManiaCS	Posted - 2007.10.22 21:41:00 - [291] Originally by: Angor Edited by: Angor on 22/10/2007 16:19:28 CCP Look at this killmail and tell me if carriers need nerfing.. KILLMAIL bah... nerf this V They killed in less than 0.1 sec that ms? Because in first 0.2 some bs should died.
Tecam Hund Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2007.10.22 21:52:00 - [292] I think it's a sensible idea. Carrier should not be able to launch oversized swarms of regular drones, and instead should rely on gang support for protection from smaller targets. Inability to launch all fighters without assigning also seems good because it does not limit Carrier's damage output but stops it from being an all purpose jump-to-bait weapon.
infinityshok	Posted - 2007.10.22 22:06:00 - [293] I am beyond disgusted that this suggestion was even permitted to come up. This goes far beyond a nerf, this is the elimination of an entire class of ships from eve. A class of ship that I have spent a massive amount of RL and in-game time on to be able to fly. The skills, cost in time, and cost in isk, to acquire a MS more than makes up for its ability to 'melt' a BS in .2 seconds. MS's are becoming more common than they were but that does not change the fact that actually flying one is a massive undertaking and should have a corresponding reward. Please reference my post in the dev comments thread to see my feelings toward this dev and his harebrained idea that only a lobotomized monkey would appreciate.
Valandril Caldari Resurrection R i s e	Posted - 2007.10.22 22:06:00 - [294] Edited by: Valandril on 22/10/2007 22:13:12 Originally by: Tecam Hund I think it's a sensible idea. Carrier should not be able to launch oversized swarms of regular drones, and instead should rely on gang support for protection from smaller targets. Inability to launch all fighters without assigning also seems good because it does not limit Carrier's damage output but stops it from being an all purpose jump-to-bait weapon. U forgot the fact that after this change carrier will be good only for pos hugin, nothing else, and it WILL loose it dps, u can control only 5 fighters, so simple u won't be able to kill anyting (anything that u could possibly kill will be fast enought to run away). Sure, its stupid that vets get benefits for beeing vets, not like banner-slogan of eve was "We reward for time" right ? Not like eve is awesome because in others mmo after couple months newbie can be better than 3 years players, while in eve this is not possible. --- Battlecarriers - lets move carriers to the front line !
marshal123 Wreckless Abandon Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.10.22 22:41:00 - [295] This is quite possibly the dumbest and least thought out idea anyone in ccp has come up with. 1) I vote no to the nerf 2) Fire the c**t that came up with the idea he obviously is'nt worth paying for.
Futher Bezluden Minmatar ORIGIN SYSTEMS Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.22 22:45:00 - [296] Rotten shot CCP, you really know how to treat your players. non-capitals are too uber with their 3-8 guns causing so much lag. Reduce all ships to 1 weapon then give all ships a 200-800% damage bonus and rof to compensate. THUKKER -Be Paranoid
drumetu	Posted - 2007.10.22 22:46:00 - [297] It's easy. If get nerfed no point to keep alts.
Benn Helmsman Caldari Dark Prophecy Inc.	Posted - 2007.10.22 23:30:00 - [298] Edited by: Benn Helmsman on 22/10/2007 23:30:40 It is pretty funny everyone is whining about that a gang can take a solo carrier appart. THAT IS NOT THE POINT! The point is, there is no way to take a 50+ carrier fleet apart. It is just impossible thx to remote repping and the technical limitation of how many ships you can field. I say, carriers can keep their fighters all for themself, if they would have to enter a "siege" mode like dreads to deploy them. So they cant get remote repped while deploying fighters. That would solve the blobbing pretty much. Add: and the stupid damp issue
Devian 666 Igneus Auctorita GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.10.22 23:44:00 - [299] I think that there should be a rule for dev blogs: STATE YOUR OBJECTIVE FIRST TO HELP CONSTRUCTIVE DISCUSSION. [/yelling] The objective should also deal with issues in gameplay. A carrier should be hard to kill but having a warp scrambled carrier with a gang incapable of killing it is just griefing. At least if the carrier can fight then the balance can change during the fight rather than being deadlocked (and boring). If the idea is to reduce the number of fighters in space. Then reduce the fighters to 5 and give them 5 times the firepower and about 2.5 to 3.5 times the hit points. The fighter assignment idea is already done for most conflicts where the cap ships do not want direct contact. So it's a moot point. The limit on launcher then assignment is only for the purpose of torturing the carrier/ms pilot with the awful drone control interface (that really needs to be fixed). Even if the carrier is supposed to be a heavy logistics ship you do not lump it in the same class as the ms. MS and Titans are, in game play terms, in the same class being supercapitals. The issues relating to ms are different and the issues with low sec supercapitals is a separate issue again. Deal with the three separate issues as separate issues. Dealing with one issue and pretending it'll deal with the others is not appropriate for game balancing. I agree I don't have the features to be a holoreel star. Quote: Astarte Nosferatu > You'd mind if I ask for your asl? SirMolle > eh?
Kyoi Shuttles Dont Tank Well	Posted - 2007.10.22 23:46:00 - [300] Worst Idea Ever Yep this is great anti-blob work, lets make everyone clutter the field in shuttles assigning fighters. Surely the lag in fleet battles is bad enough already without people in noobships/shuttles assigning fighters and carrier pilots having to struggle 30mins actually trying to get them assigned. One of the huge reasons good alliances are good is because of their working together to create a capital or supercapital fleet, you can see sides with less numbers smashing other sides because they actually worked together as an alliance to create a capital fleet. This seems to me to be one of the pro-blob changes I could think of. Good work CCP every change you add seems to only add to blob wars.



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 .. 15 :: 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.