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) |
Jack Jombardo
Amarr
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:05:00 -
[151]
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.
|
judes23
The Silent Rage M. PIRE
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:19:00 -
[152]
lol id love to see boarding action like the Cario lol
|
6Bagheera9
Slacker Industries Exuro Mortis
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:21:00 -
[153]
This is ********. There is no reason why a carrier should not be able to quickly crush almost any BS nor does it make any sense for a ship that is completely oriented towards fighters/drones to be limited to controlling the same number as lesser ships. Capital ships are on a whole other level than BSs in terms or SP and cost, if we gimp carriers in this way we might as well nerf BCs too because my Hurricane can shred a cruiser in under 30 seconds. Unsupported carriers are already quite vulnerable to gangs of BSs. All you need is 5 tier 3 BS support by EWAR and/or remote reppers and the carrier is screwed unless it gets back-up. If the Dev's are concerning about people camping low-sec gates in Moms and playing docking games/camping stations with regular carriers, all they need to do is prohibit Moms in low-sec and increase the aggression cool-down timer to 60 seconds for capital ships. I would also like to note that people frequently do assign fighters to gangmates rather then deploy them directly from the carrier. Its many advantages include not putting the carrier at risk, distributing the workload of managing the fighters in a chaotic environment, not running the risk have all the carrier's potential dps neutralized when one ship is jammed/damped, and most importantly the mobility afforded by smaller ships.
|
Klytior Am'jarhs
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:28:00 -
[154]
I like the general idea of a nerf for carriers/moms The things that need change are:
Carriers and moms should use fighters only, not normal drones
Allow assign fighters in lowsec (or capitals will be useless)
mothership should be fleet support ships not ubber pwnage ships so 1 fighter per lvl but more ship maintance bay and more clone vats
|
Zaran Darkstar
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:28:00 -
[155]
As a new player thischange makes me feel happier than ever. While compaired to other people that are in the game for years i may be considered a semi-noob in fact with this change i don't feel i miss the 50millions sp they may posess, since i am able now to be about equal to them without waste 50millions sps to useless stuff liek carriers that cost billions to train and billions to buy. :D
Well i said all that as sarcasm. In fact i really feel the pain of the older players that have spend so many years in the game and rating so much in hope to fly a carrier some day and now you come to convert their dream into nightmare. I would understad your move if it was made to diminish lag because having all these drones ut creates some serious lag, but in that case i would recomend that yes the carriers should take out less drones at the same time but these few drones should be stronger faster more durable.
But this other plan seems completly wrong way to go because in fact it converts the carriers to expencive pansies and not much else. The change degrades the carriers into Dominixes and makes all these poeple that have been trained for them for ages feel like morons.
So i would advice to reconsider your decision. To some new players may seem unfair why these several bilion cost ships should pwn the battleships but i think its tottaly fair considering the efford they need to be aquired and the responcibility the pilot that flyes them must have.
I say again that i cannot fly carriers (not even close) and as a new player this change would be in my favor but still i don't like it cause it is very unjust for the older players. :(
|
Fred 104
New Justice
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:32:00 -
[156]
This 'balance' looks amazingly unbalanced to me.
|
judes23
The Silent Rage M. PIRE
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:56:00 -
[157]
i dont think CCP will dothis now lol, they will make SO many enemies if they do this, and theyd lose lots of accounts. but ya, this balance doesnt look balcned to any1, unless ur a cry-baby
|
madaluap
Gallente Mercenary Forces Exquisite Malevolence
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 23:05:00 -
[158]
Edited by: madaluap on 21/10/2007 23:05:28
Originally by: judes23 i dont think CCP will dothis now lol, they will make SO many enemies if they do this, and theyd lose lots of accounts. but ya, this balance doesnt look balcned to any1, unless ur a cry-baby
Great argumentation. CCP went wrong on giving it +1000 DPS anyway, there are just to many carriers and capitals ******* around imo. People use it as a pwning mobile, thats it. Some carriers dont even have remote reps on them, how ******** is that. _________________________________________________ Breetime
A killmail!11!1 omgrawr: BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA |
EvilChaotyK
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 23:11:00 -
[159]
Edited by: EvilChaotyK on 21/10/2007 23:13:52 Hum this one its the best stupid idea of the year ( Sry but need to say that ) ... Just 5 Fighters + 15 assigned will kick the lag ?
And for the Ms when the pilote want fight a bit alone with just 5 Fighters LAWLZZZZZZZZZZor 20b in a ship without the fitting and can be destroy if the hostils gang can kill his fighters
Why don't nerf the dreads ? Or maybe bs with just a turret that will make no log ! Nvm...
-- Evil --
|
Karyuudo Tydraad
Caldari Whiskey Pete's Drycleaning Services
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 23:16:00 -
[160]
Finally. This is a move in the right direction, away from Capital Ships Online. Carriers never should have been the solopwnmobiles they became.
|
|
Naomi Wildfire
Amarr Stardust Heavy Industries
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 23:17:00 -
[161]
Edited by: Naomi Wildfire on 21/10/2007 23:19:40 I was really exited to fly my chimera, i skilled a lot of time for that moment, i am so close to be able to launch it effeciv and now i regret all the time i skilled it. There are so many other sings i would like to fly but i skilled the carrier, spent several bil in my tank and now its a pos huggin tool which doesnt need a tank.
This is one of the most stupid things you ever did/planned to to.
I engaged or encountered many carriers before and everything brought me to the fact, that carriers are easy to take down. Fighters/Drones are easy to kill and without those a carrier is dead meat to everyone. A carrier means much risk, if you undock, you could get bounced off, scrammed and webbed. You will never see the daylight again.
In fleets it would really be a pain in the a*s. Everyone is crying for fighters and the lag even makes it impossible to assign them. We have so much lag even without carriers, whats the next thing to nerf? Will Traffic Control permits only 20 players to jump into a system? Would fix the lag entirely.
I hope this will stay an idea and will never take a hit on TQ.
Originally by: Karyuudo Tydraad Finally. This is a move in the right direction, away from Capital Ships Online. Carriers never should have been the solopwnmobiles they became.
they were never solo pwn mobiles, they are easy kills for a small group of BS and even a single BS can do much against a Carrier with a well fitted tank.
|
poiss'caille
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 23:19:00 -
[162]
nerf carrier is stupid.
carrier and MS msut have 10 fighter at laest...
why nerf it ? because of lag ? lol useless.
it's a bad idea. BAD BAD BAD.
dont touch to capital ship plz. thx.
|
Kronn Blackthorne
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 23:25:00 -
[163]
5 fighters only ? for carriers then , motherships need 10 as they are " stronger " than regualr carriers .
only 5 fighters , fine but make them as strong as a 1000 dps BS with 50 average resists ...
oh wait , u delegate 5 of this to a nano frig able to tackle a BS and kill it .... **** it screws the game ..... need to nerf the nano .....**** already done , and we know how well it worked ..... let nerf the game ? could be a solution ;)
The Frenchy |
identiti
Caldari Asshats and Alcoholics Minuit.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 23:31:00 -
[164]
imo its a stupid idea - that is all . .
|
Aaron Mirrorsaver
R.E.C.O.N.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 23:34:00 -
[165]
Quote: Carriers never should have been the solopwnmobiles they became.
oh yeah they are wtf bbbq solon pwn mobiles.... shows how knowledgable on the subject.
R.E.C.O.N. is recruiting
|
Valandril
Caldari Resurrection R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 23:36:00 -
[166]
What the **** with "carriers are solopwn mobile" o.0 where did this came from ? Carrier can't solo battleship now unless he is sniper fited, after this nerf mayb u will be able to win 1vs1 with cruiser.
And about solopwne mses, this only happends in lowsec, so yeah its definitly vs soloms in lowsec, by nerfing all carriers and mses back to pos huggers, because now there are 2 situations where there is point in fielding carrier: 1). When u get like 10+ of them, so u can mak epretty strong remote rep chain (that can be killed with proper use of sensor dampeners) 2). Jumping on top of 10vs10/15vs15 fights or smaller, then this one carrier may matter something.
In any other situation, fielding carrier is pointless, u will be better huging pos forcefield, which is ******* not very interesit gameplay, i can guarantee that to you.
And after this nerf, u will be poinltess as 10+ carriers, and jumping in smaller fights will also be problematic.
Even theyr logistic got nerfed recently (cans in hauler anyone ?).
As for taing away from capitals online, since i remember flag banner for eve was "We reward you for time !", and now they change it so new players in frigs and t1 cruisers will be better than 1year specialized capital fleet.
Anyone see something wrong here, or is it only me ? ---
Battlecarriers ! |
ZelRox
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 23:38:00 -
[167]
Originally by: Karyuudo Tydraad Finally. This is a move in the right direction, away from Capital Ships Online. Carriers never should have been the solopwnmobiles they became.
Try pwning a small gang with a carrier and see what happens. Ill buy you a carrier if you survive. ----------------------
BiH 4tw |
Maraude Fury
Minmatar Shadow Of The Light R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 23:39:00 -
[168]
Edited by: Maraude Fury on 21/10/2007 23:45:25 Nice. A years skills trained.
A billion+ isk spent on skills.
A ship that can be killed by 10 BS's in under 2 mins.
As it was, my carrier was used solely for Logistical reasons. I had a hope that a MOM at least I'd be able to use in a Front line capabilty.
A carrier as a logistical ship is just not workable with the game as it was. Maybe back in the first year, when a "Large Fleet" was 100 ships it might have. But today in the day of super Blobs of 200-500 hotiles, it's not just practical.
When capital ships can be killed in under a minute by BS gangs, how am I supposed to safe a Battleship, with my logistical ability, if it takes me half that time to lock them. By the time I lock them, they're dead.
How about this. Remove the Logistical modules as a single target, ranged heal, and turn them into an AOE heal, that will heal any friendly ship within say a 50km range.
Then you'll still see carriers used on the front line, you'll be able to cut down on their Fighter/drone abilities. But if you have 50 carriers on a gate, with 5 Drones/Fighters each, and an AOE heal from each would reach out 50 km, you'd get them being used a lot more.
Maybe cap the "AOE heal to a certain amount when there are xxx many of them in the area. So say they can heal 1000 hp ever 3 seconds, then if there are 2 of them, they can only do say 1200hp /3 seconds together, and so on.
or something.
but as it is, I'm terrified to use my carrier solo. I'm terrified to use it in large gangs, i'm terrified to use em in cap ship fleets, becuase the damned things are so fragile as it is.
--------
Why don't you just make it so that capital ships cannot be killed by non caps, and that capitals can't hit non caps.
that way you'd have 2 battles in each system.
The capital vs capital, and the Non-Cap vs Non-Cap.
For POS warfare(Which is why this all started in the first place) you'd have to take out the capitals first, otherwise, they'd be able to rep the POS danger free. So you'd have 2 fleets, each with caps, and non caps. The caps would attack/heal the POS, while the non-Caps defend/attack the system.
sigh.. ah screw it.. You guys have all ready decided what you're going to do. We're all just *****in to the wind.
Maraude Fury CEO: Shadow Of The Light .SOL.
] |
Karyuudo Tydraad
Caldari Whiskey Pete's Drycleaning Services
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 23:49:00 -
[169]
Originally by: ZelRox
Try pwning a small gang with a carrier and see what happens. Ill buy you a carrier if you survive.
Depends on the composition of the gang, its size, etc. I doubt your idea of a small gang is anything like mine. It really doesn't matter. The point is that capital ships were rapidly becoming the prevalent combat ship class. Which is to say, if you were to pick any single ship to be in an engagement, for the majority of scenarios a carrier would out perform any other ship in its role save for a tackler and EW. All while providing unrivaled logistical support. Carriers, when ganged, became exponentially more dangerous because of this. To the point where it made little sense to bring anything else if you could fly one.
|
Valandril
Caldari Resurrection R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 00:11:00 -
[170]
Edited by: Valandril on 22/10/2007 00:13:11
Originally by: Karyuudo Tydraad
Originally by: ZelRox
Try pwning a small gang with a carrier and see what happens. Ill buy you a carrier if you survive.
Depends on the composition of the gang, its size, etc. I doubt your idea of a small gang is anything like mine. It really doesn't matter. The point is that capital ships were rapidly becoming the prevalent combat ship class. Which is to say, if you were to pick any single ship to be in an engagement, for the majority of scenarios a carrier would out perform any other ship in its role save for a tackler and EW. All while providing unrivaled logistical support. Carriers, when ganged, became exponentially more dangerous because of this. To the point where it made little sense to bring anything else if you could fly one.
Yes, its very unfair that if u put 10 carriers on battlefield, u can't just counter it with t1 frigs/cruisers but u have to put adequate assets on your own side to kill em. Totaly unfair and should be nerfed. /sarcasm off ---
Battlecarriers ! |
|
Cpt Munt
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 00:18:00 -
[171]
Edited by: Cpt Munt on 22/10/2007 00:24:37
Originally by: Jack Jombardo 5 fighters are still powerfull.
Motherships are fleet-suport-ships. Like logistics (Guardian etc) just a little bigger.
spoken like somebody who hasnt the faintest idea.
Comparing my 35 billion isk Mothership to a 70 million isk Logistics ship is ludicrous. Why on earth would you build/fly a mothership at that cost if remote repping one is their one and only role?
I've never once taken my MS into low-sec and I have no interest in doing so... its pathetic grief play. But in doing this proposed move all CCP will achieve is to punish every carrier pilot for the actions of a few lame mothership pilots. Why not instead ban these pilots or make it unpractical for them to low sec grief... say... cant deploy Fighters or sentry guns do 5000% more damage to an aggressed carrier sized ship?
I'm currently on hiatus away from the game but if I know that if upon my return I find something like this has been implemented... I'll reckon I'll just quit Eve. 3.5 years, 3 characters with 120m skill points spread across them and that I worked bloody hard in this game to self fund my Mothership, all will just not be worth it.
Listen to your paying customers on this one CCP.
|
NaRoaN
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 00:23:00 -
[172]
Once again i say
Whoever thought of this idea at eve and/or players who are whinning ; should be FIRED!!! BLOWN UP AND PODDED
|
Ishtar1
Mortis Angelus The Church.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 00:30:00 -
[173]
i could write a long post but the other guy seem to have summed it up nicly so ill say this
NO!
|
Trask Kilraen
The Older Gamers R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 00:31:00 -
[174]
OK, I just spent months training skills, and a couple billion buying a carrier and fitting it. WTF!!!???
If this guy was in QA, I understand now why there are so many fuggin' bugs in this game!
Stupidest. Idea. Ever.
Carriers and Moms are not, have never been, and never will be uber-death machines.
A couple weeks ago, some mates and I attacked 3 carriers and a mom.... we killed a couple dozen fighters in exchange for the loss of a cruiser and an inty. Doesn't sound overpowered to me.
If you do this, you eliminate carriers as front line ships and alienate a huge core of players.
CCP listen up: your customers DO NOT WANT THIS!!!! ------------------------------------------
|
NaRoaN
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 00:36:00 -
[175]
Originally by: Valandril Edited by: Valandril on 22/10/2007 00:13:11
Originally by: Karyuudo Tydraad
Originally by: ZelRox
Try pwning a small gang with a carrier and see what happens. Ill buy you a carrier if you survive.
Depends on the composition of the gang, its size, etc. I doubt your idea of a small gang is anything like mine. It really doesn't matter. The point is that capital ships were rapidly becoming the prevalent combat ship class. Which is to say, if you were to pick any single ship to be in an engagement, for the majority of scenarios a carrier would out perform any other ship in its role save for a tackler and EW. All while providing unrivaled logistical support. Carriers, when ganged, became exponentially more dangerous because of this. To the point where it made little sense to bring anything else if you could fly one.
Yes, its very unfair that if u put 10 carriers on battlefield, u can't just counter it with t1 frigs/cruisers but u have to put adequate assets on your own side to kill em. Totaly unfair and should be nerfed. /sarcasm off
Then dont attack a freaking fleet of carriers and stop whinning & and get your A**a back to High Sec where u belong carebear!...
Its not called low sec for the hell of it....
Why the heck should or would a t1 frigs/cruisers be able to counter a Capital Ship??? So in fact what your saying is that a T1 Frig, which cost what , maybe a million. should be able to counter a carrier / ms who prices start at 1 billion upto 30?
Thats like saying America ( which we can compare to a MotherShip ) should be able to get blown up by Iraq (which we can compare to a T1 frig).
You guys want to nerf something. Then nerf nerfing!
|
Valandril
Caldari Resurrection R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 01:01:00 -
[176]
Edited by: Valandril on 22/10/2007 01:03:19
Originally by: Zarrika Khan If you really want to encourage this change/balance then make even more interesting, give assigned Fighters and additional Bonus like faster MWD/agility/warp travel speeds... Then as a Carrier Pilot I am looking for faster locking ships to have my fighters being used to attack the enemy.
Don't tell me u enjoy sitting next to forcefield instead going to battlefield, i bet you don't, neither do i, also ccp couple months ago wanted carriers to frontline, ppl moved them to frontline and what ? Now we are sent back to pos huging. Very interesting gameplay, seriously, everyone should try it. So not giving damage bonus is not rly the problem with carriers, but the fact that they are most efficent while hugging pos forcefield which is plain stupid, we wanna PLAY WITH OUR SHIPS NOT HUG SHIELDS.
"So bring it" yea, and then just sit duck there, coz everyone is outside your remote repping range, and u will be EWAR primary so u will assign fighters anyway (more about how to move carriers to frontline in topic in my signature :P).
NaRoaN: look at last line of my post "/sarcrasm off" means i was beeing sarcastinc in that post. ---
Battlecarriers - lets move carriers to the front line ! |
jarni
Amarr The Collective Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 01:02:00 -
[177]
Edited by: jarni on 22/10/2007 01:02:27 does CCP actually pay ppl to come up with this 5HIT
|
Traderjohn
Caldari Dark Knights of Deneb Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 01:13:00 -
[178]
bad nerf tbh. its a carrier, not a domi. simple. carrier should deploy more its what they are used for.
|
Kronn Blackthorne
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 01:20:00 -
[179]
about carriers = solopwnmobile : look all around KB , and get a clue
The Frenchy |
Icome4u
Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 01:26:00 -
[180]
Originally by: Kronn Blackthorne about carriers = solopwnmobile : look all around KB , and get a clue
lol exactly :) Only noobs and idiots think they are solopwnmobile.
This sig demonstrate the problem is not drones or fighters but the amount of people show up to blobs and fleets. |
|
|
|
|
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 |