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) |
Raging Knight
Shadow Assasins Dark Matter Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 09:01:00 -
[361]
oh deah oh deah.
/signed
|
Cilppiz
Minmatar FinFleet Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 09:19:00 -
[362]
Whats next? Tech2 guns?
|
Kazamidori
Division 9 Golden Leaves Izanagi Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 09:45:00 -
[363]
IF CCP plans to nerf carriers, FIX the drone control module in such a way that it acts as a high-slot damage mod for the drones. Basically, a carrier launching 5 drones, for example, with 2 ~ 3 drone control modules will do equivalent of 10~20 drones with advanced drone upgrade skills.
Carrier is vulnerable enough as is. With inties scrambling at 28~30km come Rev3, it'll be even more vulnerable to having several inties holding it down. It needs some method of defense.
Suggestion; Adv. Drone Interfacing: 10% increase in drone dps/level onboard carriers/motherships. Drone Control Unit: 15% Increase in drone DPS.
Motherships recieve on-board drone damage bonus instead of drone number bonus. (Even HP bonus too, and decrease drone bay space)
--- Izanagi Alliance |
Dominator9987
Minmatar The Shambling Horde
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 09:57:00 -
[364]
Originally by: zulu 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 lilę friends in the fleet and send them forth to be the messengers of your burning fury./quote]
Hey why don't they just remove all the fitting slots too! put the drone bay down to 25m3 but keep the training time. That way noone will fly em and all the people who trained for it will quit eve. (good market plan honestly).
I think I'm not going to resub if this goes through.
|
Susie Q
Interstellar eXodus R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 10:44:00 -
[365]
This suggestion just pushes carriers back to playing the low-risk, semi afk, pos hugging, fighter assigning role.
At least you risk loosing your carrier when you take it directly into combat.
Carriers are fine as they are.
|
CamMan
Evolution Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 10:47:00 -
[366]
BSs fitted with smartbombs can kill much more in fighters then the BS itself is worth, you can insure the BS too.
Originally by: Bender Interesting, no the other one ... tedious
|
Alyxa Mahan
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 11:44:00 -
[367]
Originally by: Futher Bezluden Modern US carriers carry 85+ fighters and thank god they can field all of them. I am sure Iraq griped to the UN for a carrier nerf like any noob would do.
Great argument that! Modern carriers are also completely helpless on their own, never go anywhere without a complete taskforce build around them for their protection, and wouldn't even dream of getting near any "frontlines". Modern carriers, well, all carriers every build really, are nothing more than highly vulnerable mobile airstrips for power projection, that can be taken out by a couple fighters or a lucky sub. IF those fighters or sub manage to get through the screen that is... As to the second sentence, thats pretty funny actually. Cause it was pure gankage, the iraqis never had the slightest chance. If they had been in possession of an even remotely competetive air force, you wouldn't have seen a single US carrier anywhere near the gulf.
Believe me, you don't want to fly the analogon to a real world carrier in EVE.
|
BOldMan
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 12:08:00 -
[368]
Edited by: BOldMan on 23/10/2007 12:15:13
Originally by: Kazamidori IF CCP plans to nerf carriers ....
We are all aware that carriers was subject of a lot nerfs from start? If I remember was a fighter deployment nerf, a fighter tracking nerf and so on.
1. I want to know if CCP intent to make a 1.5B ship to have combat value of 100mil in the end? regarding offensive.
2. Defensive role for carriers is plain wrong. This class of ship was created and designed (yes, design is a very hard word to understand for some people) to be carriers. Making these changes of his roles not only transform carriers in other ship that was the initial purpose, but create a line of next frustration for each player. We choose to train and skill and invest in a ship with a defined role and when we get there on the prize, to be able to fly and use our time and money, ccp remove the toy from his role. It is bad, unethical and sound like a intellectual cheat from my personal viewpoint. Carrier wasn't define as primary role to heal and tank. Make an other capital ship for intended role of logistic. Logistic role of carrier is fine now for battles that are on small scale. For large battles they (logistic roles as they are define now) are useless, regarding server state.
We donĘt spend time and pay subscription because we wish to be a 40-50mil skill point POS huggers and drone deploy in fleet battles of 600 people with 1 client command at 15 minutes. Can you (ccp) see our viewpoints? If a new people in game cannot see what it will be became his character in time and don't care to evolve to new and better ship and want to stay in same fleets of hundreds of bs and bc is not my problem. But eve-online was a so great game because of line of evolution. If evolution pilots in game are spoiled, the game is going down.
Finnaly, I wish to know why new lines of BS T2 was not design to counter the carriers and capitals use better than are doing now BS T1? Because, HACS were a counter to actual BS T1. Please put order in your design/nerf plans because this game is already full of issues related to big numbers (items/players/fleetbattles/trafic/...)
I hope carriers are remain as they are now, and triage module get a well done redesign to be used in game and the carrier counter come from other class of ships.
In last period CCP introduced a lot of new toys (bombers, overheating, triage) but everybody must admit all where failure in player using process. Also was nerfed a lot items/modules that where in game from first day only to help people to play easier and dont stress to use proper counters on them (NOS, missiles, nanos). That is not balancing, is leveling, people!
That should raise a alarm signal for your product management, no?
|
Extregar Qvint
Caldari FinFleet
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 12:09:00 -
[369]
Worst suggestion i heard of at least...
|
Hyakuchan
Earth Federation Space Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 13:00:00 -
[370]
Originally by: Princess Dave I want to adress the people who are under the ilusion that carriers are uber front line assult ships.
Now to adress motherships and titans. Yes these are a major problem in low sec since u cant scram them. that is the only problem with supercapitals. and that pilot flying that super cap spent 20bill+ on his ship. and the only thing a mom pilot can do is fly a mom. wont it be great to have a char devoded soly on motherships to have it nerfed.
That's where you're wrong.
This nerf seems to be ENTIRELY focuses on ending solo mom gatecamps before it becomes so common that lowsec ceases to be useful to anyone.
People who specialized to get a solo mom and smash anything in sight played the Flavor-of-the-Month. And now they'll get burned for it, just like every other player who believes the FOTM will last forever.
It's not our problem that their FOTM took a year to train for. They picked the obviously overpowered choice, and enjoyed the benefit, and now that it's clearly being exploited to make lowsec useless to anyone but pirates they'll suffer the consequences.
The problem is not carriers. The problem is not the fighters. The problem is that, played right, there is NO WAY TO KILL A MOM IN LOWSEC. Unless the pilot and cyano alt **** up, you cannot kill one.
Period.
You cannot kill one in lowsec unless they make a mistake, and unlike the titan it sacrifices none of it's escape capacity to bring it's arsenal to bear. The titan at least has to choose whether to fight or run.
Invulnerability without consequences is overpowered and it will be nerfed.
-------------------------------------------------- "Only the stupid rob the poor." |
|
Constance Noring
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 13:23:00 -
[371]
Unless I'm mistaken, CCP is trying to move away from capital ships online, where everyone is flying a carrier/ms, into a situation where you'd have to bring a few support ships for each carrier to make full use of their potential. I think this would be a healthy direction for the game, since it encourages ship diversity and teamwork. Considering that capitals would be flying with support, I don't think the defensive concerns are quite as dramatic as many of you make them out to be. However I wouldn't be opposed to CCP boosting fighters to compensate for the drawbacks. This way you'd retain reasonably good defensive capability even when left on your own, you'd actually gain a fair bit of damage output assuming you have enough support to assign all your fighters, and we'd get the intended balance between carriers and other ships. Win-win situation imho.
|
Kronn Blackthorne
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 13:28:00 -
[372]
then CCP can just implement a special scrambler module at each low sec startget ( like a billboard but usefull ) with let say 100 km range and workin only on MS . this way , if the guy come in MS at the gate , he knows he can die ..
The Frenchy |
Smudo
Caldari The SMITE Brotherhood
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 14:08:00 -
[373]
/Signed
|
pilotdeath24354
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 14:13:00 -
[374]
A fix for the Fighter blobs is needed. but this will just gank carriers too a point of useless.
no one wants a 1.5 billion isk Drone boat. we want a carrier. keep them that way.
|
Hyakuchan
Earth Federation Space Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 14:14:00 -
[375]
Edited by: Hyakuchan on 23/10/2007 14:17:16
Originally by: Kronn Blackthorne Hyakuchan , it s maybe the FOTM ship , but it happen already 10 times to others FOTM ships , which one is next ? urs ?
Heh... The day they nerf the hulk is the day the economy quits playing.
In all seriousness, no, they already whacked drone control to pieces so there's nothing left they can do to my main that I care about. All indications suggest CCP wants me to play blasters 'n armor builds, so that's what I do.
CCP will never, EVER nerf bread and butter builds. If you ****ing shoot at your targets instead of swarming them with pets, NOSing their cap into the dirt, fillng space with your own dead so they can't warp and otherwise doing GS-grade scum****ery, CCP loves you.
Well, not really loves otherwise they would have fixed the Apoc and Dreads in general. But they're not going to nerf you anytime soon. -------------------------------------------------- "Only the stupid rob the poor." |
Darahk J'olonar
Gallente Shiva Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 14:17:00 -
[376]
OK I am not even a cap pilot and I think this is ******** on so many levels of ******** it makes waterheads looks like geniuses! First off a carrier/MOM relies on its' fighters for everything it does. To take away the ability for them to field their current numbers when alone is absurd, whether it be fighters or drones, this is what they do. To make this change is nothing more than alienating your current senior playerbase. If that is what CCP's goal is then they will undoubtedly achieve it and more than likely lose a good number of the current playerbase to this ludicrous change.
|
NATMav
F.R.E.E. Explorer Atrum Tempestas Foedus
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 14:22:00 -
[377]
I hate carrier/mom blobs as much as anyone, and fighters and drones for that matter as well.
But this isn't the right solution.
|
Kronn Blackthorne
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 14:52:00 -
[378]
so hyakuchan they want u to play a way ...... who the **** is payin the other ???? do they pay u to play the way they want ? or are u payin to play the way u like ?
think bout it
The Frenchy |
Dominator9987
Minmatar The Shambling Horde
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 14:52:00 -
[379]
guh. checking other games incase this change goes thru. It just goes to show that skills dont matter. that they are tailoring the game to noobs who want to take on supercapitals in their rookie ships.
|
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente The JORG Corporation Methods of Mayhem Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 15:01:00 -
[380]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 23/10/2007 15:03:29 Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 23/10/2007 15:02:53 To nerf the carrier is like taking away its primary function and turning it into a glorified hauler with a jump drive.
Its stupid and the only ppl supporting this are those who have neither the brains or the skills to kill one.
In other words noobs who have already benifited with the t2 ammo nerf and the titan nerf and the increase in cpu need for hardeners.
Whats next a removal of the skill point system?.
My views may represent those of my corp/alliance but you will have to ask em to be sure. |
|
Nick Parker
Caldari Elite Storm Enterprises
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 15:03:00 -
[381]
Edited by: Nick Parker on 23/10/2007 15:05:57 Edit I'm sure much of this has been said, but incase you missed it
I looked through my collection of old games, and found the wing commander series, & descent freespace1 and 2. IN all those games a carrier could launch as many fighter wings as it had to defend itself or engage enemy ships. Now in eve, CCP thinks it's brilliant to buck the mold and let carriers NOT be able to launch all it's fighters in defense or offense. Even Modern earth carriers can do that.
Truth be told carriers aren't solopwn mobiles. You have to have gang mates to move you, a single tech 1 frigate can render you unable to target anything for offensive or defensive purposes, unless you enter Triage mode, which renders your offense to virtually nothing.
Also, Reducing how many fighters someone can launch isn't going to reduce lag. It's going to increase lag, as more people show up to a fight with carriers involved to control the extra fighters. So you nerf a poorly designed ship group further and increase lag.
BTW carriers are suppossed to be able to kill BS. That why they are no active BS today IRL.
WHy in the hell did I spend well over a billion isk, and hours of training time only to get a second rate hauler that doubles as a bloated logistics cruiser while looking like a A frame Tent. Now it's looking like my bloated A Frame tent will not be able to fart out a drone unless I have someone to hold my hand.
Why do a small group of whiners get their way in this game? It's sad.
YOU FAIL
/signed
PS My views do not represent my corp's.
|
Meleia
Satanic Red
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 15:15:00 -
[382]
A nerf to Carriers/Motherships?
I think its great. To many cap ships in the game imho.
I only wish it would have been another solution though, but cant really come up with one myself... The current (future) nerf feels kinda wrong... A carrier should be able to launch fighters at will.
But really, Moms and Carriers are more and more becoming the "standard" ship in fleet fights. All other ships will soon become obsolete cannonfodder.
While your at it, make Battleships cap ships.
"But, the psychiatrist adds that griefers could also just be mentally ill, whether they're depressed, have a psychotic disorder, or substance abuse problems." |
Nick Parker
Caldari Elite Storm Enterprises
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 15:16:00 -
[383]
/signed
|
Lord Drokoth
Amarr The JORG Corporation Methods of Mayhem Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 15:22:00 -
[384]
Ok this is just wrong. and an insult to those who fly and are trying to train to fly Carriers and moms. controlling just 5 fighters without anyone else simply sucks and as said before isnt going to help lag as there will be more people in a fleet to compensate, thus causing a lagfest!
if the idea is to reduce lag then a simple soloution, increace the effective power of fighters while reducing the ammount at least then 5 fighters would be as effective as the newly nerfed 10 or 15.
/signed!
|
Gyle
Caldari Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 15:30:00 -
[385]
Originally by: Meleia A nerf to Carriers/Motherships?
I think its great. To many cap ships in the game imho.
I only wish it would have been another solution though, but cant really come up with one myself... The current (future) nerf feels kinda wrong... A carrier should be able to launch fighters at will.
But really, Moms and Carriers are more and more becoming the "standard" ship in fleet fights. All other ships will soon become obsolete cannonfodder.
While your at it, make Battleships cap ships.
Wrong on so many levels. its because so many people dont understand how to fight em. Dont blame the game mechanics because its dummed down player base doesnt understand how to work with em. 1 Arazu disables 1 carrier. nuff said
|
Hyakuchan
Earth Federation Space Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 15:30:00 -
[386]
Edited by: Hyakuchan on 23/10/2007 15:31:57
Originally by: Nick Parker BTW carriers are suppossed to be able to kill BS. That why they are no active BS today IRL.
WHy in the hell did I spend well over a billion isk, and hours of training time only to get a second rate hauler that doubles as a bloated logistics cruiser while looking like a A frame Tent.
If CCP gave us the "Alfa" to your "Nimitz", then I'd be satisfied.
But unfortunately there doesn't exist a ship in EVE today that can turn your mothership into scrap with two torpedo hits. Until there is, you're overpowered.
We need a capship with the firepower to gut other capships with a single target focused DD blast. -------------------------------------------------- "Only the stupid rob the poor." |
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 15:52:00 -
[387]
Originally by: DT3 Edited by: DT3 on 22/10/2007 10:51:20 I do not understand what low sec smartbombing ms has to do with carriers in 0.0 having less fighters. A ms without 20 fighters could leave the field just as quickly as a ms with 5.
Have you missed the recent stories of several mothership dying in low sec to well planned attacks?
1 mothership killed in low sec is different from several.
CCP is addressing misuse of motherships and this kind of behaviour is part of it. As most people is saying that mothership are not solo killmobile, that they can't kill anithing smaller than a BS and so on, this thread is the demonstration that they can be a solo killmobile and a threat even for small ships.
This don't mean that reducing the number of fighter usable by a mothership is the right solution, but that CCP is not wrong trying to address a problem that exists.
I remember you that the reduction of the number of fighters is a solution they are considering but for now it is not even in the testing stage. It is possible the will follow other routes.
|
aalyah norri
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 16:13:00 -
[388]
anyone wanna buy a archon
think that say's it all
|
Fraglock
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 16:28:00 -
[389]
Granted im sick of carriers and their WTFPWN abilities but thats what people spend multiple amounts of billions of isk on. i would love to see them get nerfed but i dont think it should be this extreme. because if fielding fighters to another player then that player cant field their drones, then your going to have to be specific ships with no drone bays to take control of the fighters. why not expand out on the fighter aspect. nerf the fighters not the carriers. give them a little bit of variety why not make fighter-class armor, shield repairers or make whole new classes of fighter. maybe ECCM fighters to help with marauders since they are able to be jammed so well. then maybe damage fighters wouldnt be fielded every time.
|
Seiryu
VentureCorp Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 17:05:00 -
[390]
I really don't understand why this change is necessary. From what I understand there are lots of people who use their carriers as support ships. I see lots of complaints about how lag makes it hard to repair someone as well as "alpha strikes" where a whole fleet shoots at a single ship. I think it would be more constructive to try to discourage blobbing as this will reduce lag as well as make it more viable for carriers to try and repair gangmates. I think adding an ability to the triage module that makes it quicker to lock gangmates would help encourage people to use them for fleet support more than damage dealers as well. It also appears that most carrier pilots are concerned with the price of fighters and how easy it is for them to be killed which makes them hesitate to delegate them...
Someone mentioned on another thread an idea about having limits on the number of ships per class for a fleet. Like 1x Titan, 2x MoMs, 10 Carriers, 10 Dreads, 30 BS, etc... You could also try and work something into formations and try and find a way to allow fleets to split up so you don't have hundreds of people hammering at a POS to take sov.
I do agree whole heartedly with the idea of banning super caps from low sec and limiting them to 0.0 though.
Please read this and take my comments into consideration. I tried very hard to be constructive and not abrasive with my criticisms. ----True bravery is not lacking fear, but confronting it.----
|
|
|
|
|
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 |