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)
Zarrika Khan Caldari No Quarter. Academy Vae Victis.	Posted - 2007.10.22 01:30:00 - [181] No My idea for the Fighters to get a bonus while being assigned has nothing to do with POS hugging. No where in my post did I state the word POS. So please do not read POSes into it thank you very much. Carriers are not Solo Pwnmobiles. <- that is a period. Front line combat: Either be on station where the battle is going to take place or warp to it in gang with fighters already assigned EITHER way. If those fighters are preforming faster and better (not just DPS, we do not need more damage bonuses. I know Thanatos pilots would just be way too happy in the pants over that.) because they are assigned then you as a Carrier pilot are having a better effect on the fight by assigning them. You can still sit close to your slower defense force, the sniping and EW ships that will stay next to you while you keep them alive and they keep you alive. They snipe the ships in the enemy fleet. They jam and damp the ships that are trying to jam and damp you. Wow, you might actually have to play with other people and plan your fleet actions out.... Or go run missions in Empire, that you can do solo.
Icome4u Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L	Posted - 2007.10.22 02:00:00 - [182] Carriers and MS have NEVER been solowtfpwnmachines... why do people think that??? Yes it's true you need to bring in more ships to kill them but it's like... you need more ships to kill a BS... its how EVE is... So you didn't kill a carrier in a BS but he killed you... well you didn't kill a BS in your BC and he killed you... NERF BS!!! Take their dps away!!! wtf.......... This sig demonstrate the problem is not drones or fighters but the amount of people show up to blobs and fleets.
Mourn Navarre	Posted - 2007.10.22 02:05:00 - [183] Originally by: Tempest Kane This the most ****** thing you have ever done to super capitals and capitals in general.... oh wait.. no its not. Please stop giving us ships that cost 20-30bill then 8 months later turning them into 100mill Domix's, your taking the ** now ccp. Get a clue. Welcome to Eve. I got rid of my 67M skillpoint character because I had trained so many ships from different ship changes in Eve over the years, I was just hemmoraging clone costs for absolutely nothing because more than 1/3 of those points were wasted on things I don't like.
Xaldor	Posted - 2007.10.22 02:12:00 - [184] Originally by: Jack Jombardo Edited by: Jack Jombardo on 21/10/2007 21:50:05 Quote: Carriers won¦t be able to defend herselfs anymore. 5 fighters are still powerfull. Motherships are fleet-suport-ships. Like logistics (Guardian etc) just a little bigger. Ever saw a Guardian that could defend hisselfe? I am going to take a stab in the dark here and guess that a guardian doesn't cost 20 billion isk or take a year of training to fly properly.
Karyuudo Tydraad Caldari Whiskey Pete's Drycleaning Services	Posted - 2007.10.22 02:17:00 - [185] Originally by: Valandril 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 No. It's simply detrimental to game balance that 10 carriers on the battlefield dominate combat in such a manner that they provide the majority of damage and logistic support. If a ship is as all encompassing in its capabilities as a carrier is and becomes more powerful the more you field (in this instance via focused remote repairing), it only encourages blobbing as many of these as possible to the exclusion of all else. Optimally, carriers would be a worthwhile addition to a fleet, and not the mainstay of one. I have no idea where you conceived that I believed that a detachment of T1 frigates and cruisers should somehow render a carrier blob worthless, but I would recommend refraining from attempting to set up straw man arguments in the future.
Mourn Navarre Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2007.10.22 02:29:00 - [186] Originally by: Xaldor I am going to take a stab in the dark here and guess that a guardian doesn't cost 20 billion isk or take a year of training to fly properly. I don't think that is really the point because if you think like that, then you are thinking like every other level based MMORPG. And this is coming from someone who had a character that could fly every ship in the game and then some.
Zylatis Umbra Congregatio	Posted - 2007.10.22 02:38:00 - [187] Seriously CCP, please don't do this. You will ruin an entire class of ships and **** off all the people that have trained/are training for them. This is a baaaaaaaaaaad idea.
Mortuus Minmatar Viper Squad Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.10.22 02:50:00 - [188] Oh noes, my solopwnmobile is getting nerfed!!!! Finally, these things shouldn't be solo killing machines, its a support ship, its not like you take a dread out running around solo either. ex-Occassus Republica <3
Icome4u Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L	Posted - 2007.10.22 02:57:00 - [189] Originally by: Karyuudo Tydraad Originally by: Valandril 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 No. It's simply detrimental to game balance that 10 carriers on the battlefield dominate combat in such a manner that they provide the majority of damage and logistic support. If a ship is as all encompassing in its capabilities as a carrier is and becomes more powerful the more you field (in this instance via focused remote repairing), it only encourages blobbing as many of these as possible to the exclusion of all else. Optimally, carriers would be a worthwhile addition to a fleet, and not the mainstay of one. I have no idea where you conceived that I believed that a detachment of T1 frigates and cruisers should somehow render a carrier blob worthless, but I would recommend refraining from attempting to set up straw man arguments in the future. Dude you FAILED. Just stop posting already. If they bring in 10 carriers, well ether don't engage them or bring more powerful ships or just MORE ships. It sucks yeah, but thats how things are done. If they nerf the carrier/ms like this well they better nerf ALL ships. This sig demonstrate the problem is not drones or fighters but the amount of people show up to blobs and fleets.
Marlona Sky	Posted - 2007.10.22 02:58:00 - [190] Um. This is well... Stupid. I mean all this will do for lag is make is worse. So now instead of one player in a system using a carrier. He will bring in 3-5 more players to that system to control his fighters. So now the system has to support 4 players instead of 1. Do you really think this will not happen? People will still carrier blob. Now you just forced them to bring in 4-5 times more people to the system to do it. Good job for forcing us to do bigger blobs! And at 15+ million a fighter and for them to die so easy with just a web. I SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO AT LEAST CONTROL THEM!!!!! I'm sick of all these noobs who think they can take on a carrier by themselves and wonder why their battleship didn't win and then complain. People spend the better part of a year and a billion in skill books and about 2 billion on the ship and fighters and you wonder why you only a couple months old in your 150 million isk ship cant beat it? GET A CLUE!!! This is not WoW, CoH, EQ2 or some other MMORG where you can be super uber by grinding 24/7 and eating hot pockets for a week! Don't nerf those people who have worked hard and spent a lot of the most expensive currency in the world at making their character and ships nice... Time.

Brka Vendetta Underground Rule of Three	Posted - 2007.10.22 03:04:00 - [191] Edited by: Brka on 22/10/2007 03:06:16 Don't fix what isn't broken. This isn't broken. A carrier beats my battleship. It hit me in low sec. Low sec is risky. If you can't take the heat get out of low sec. Otherwise put this idea away and leave it alone. I generally don't post about nerfs or otherwise but this one is so game altering and illogical I couldn't sit there and let it pass.
Karyuudo Tydraad Caldari Whiskey Pete's Drycleaning Services	Posted - 2007.10.22 03:09:00 - [192] Originally by: Icome4u Edited by: Icome4u on 22/10/2007 02:58:33 Dude you FAILED. Just stop posting already. If they bring in 10 carriers, well ether don't engage them or bring more powerful ships or just MORE ships. It sucks yeah, but thats how things are done. If they nerf the carrier/ms like this well they better nerf ALL ships. Moortus if that wasn't scarcasm then go learn about carriers and MS. They are not solopwnmachines. Only idiots die to them. If you get gank by one and he has support to hold you down etc etc then you deserve to die. Next time use a f*cking scout. I remember you. The "vet mothership pilot," right? Well, while I'm pleased you have desisted with overusing capital letters in an attempt to provide unneeded emphasis for the most part, your arguments, as usual, are completely devoid of deductive reasoning. Witty internet rhetoric does not a premise make. If you do not wish to contribute constructively to the discussion at hand, you are posting in the wrong thread. Indeed, the wrong forum.
prathe Minmatar Omega Enterprises Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2007.10.22 03:13:00 - [193] honestly i see three main problems with this nerf 1) the amount of fighters we can use ? well in a fleet battle of 300+ if you can guarantee me that my eve client will preform silky smooth and i will be able to to manage all this delegation plus logistics plus maintain situational awareness all lag free at minimum 30fps then yes lets talk but until then ...sorry no dice 2) the notion that a 20bil (minimum) ship can melt a 100 mil ship in .2 seconds is a little balance tbh . what you need to do is force players to adopt tactics and skill not sugar coat the game for them every player who owns flies a mom has traveled the long route thru eve of frigate cruisers bs -and so on now we give new players the ability buy isk and chars and extra sp's and all the advantages in the world WE NEVER HAD ! but forget that lets give them one thing more why dont we send a ccp rep to their house to cook them diner every night because hey theyve earned it . 3)this game is all about established community and established norms i.e. empires alliances so on and so forth . these things give new players something to aspire to . they way you are normalizing eve so that sp's count for less and less you make this game more like battlefield2 and less like eve . the origional concept you created when you made this game is what you are slowly eroding away with all these comprimises which tend to punish the most sucessfull players in favour making life easier for the less skilled and lets be honest if we could play this game in fleet realistically the way it should be played then new players would gain an edge but lets be honest this isn's a nerf on an unfair advantage this is a nerf to hide the deficiency that causes most of these "unfair " losses an unresponsive server , lagged client and the inability to react to situations fast enough most of the ships pwnd by the ms are usually lagged out already when it happens they have no time to warp out or gain distance or target fighters they die because they are watching modules take 10 mins to activate and being eaten alive while they wait for the client to get any kind of return info from the server .
Elfaen Ethenwe omen. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.10.22 03:18:00 - [194] ffs ccp. take your nerfbat and hit something that needs nurfing. like your dodgy, laggy servers. Get off the carrier ive only just got and spent a year working towards
RisenPhoenix Vendetta Underground Rule of Three	Posted - 2007.10.22 03:31:00 - [195] Horrible Idea stop nerfing **** and get us some new ship models instead of taking old ship models coloring them pink and calling it t2... ------------------------------------------------
A wiseman Vendetta Underground Rule of Three	Posted - 2007.10.22 03:42:00 - [196] Im going to keep training carrier in the hope that you guys see sense
Chukk Solo Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.10.22 04:22:00 - [197] what a lame idea to nerf carriers/momma's. Signature file size and dimensions to big, please keep it under 400x120 and 24000bytes - Petwraith
Leo Jonson Caldari Capital Ships Inc. Kinetic Maelstrom Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.22 04:40:00 - [198] 1. While I agree with the understood intent of the change I disagree with the method. To break the primary feature of the carrier class as a "balancing act" seems to be over kill. Rather than nerfing carriers damage output, let's make combat logistics a viable option, in both lag and non-lagged situations, and find a way for ships, with help, to survive alpha strikes. 2. To date, logistics ships have been handed the role of being bonused remote repair ships. A different idea that may work better for the mixed fleet desire is a logistics ability to boost resistances. I suggest that this ability come in two forms, directed and area of effect. 3. The area of effect method would be less powerful, but effective under lagged environments. The "shroud" would be a module that creates area of effect that boosts the resistances of all squad members (for logistics cruiser pilots) or wing members (for carrier pilots). The boost to the resistances would also be ship type based, so armor tanking empires would get a resist to armor, and the same for shield tanking empires. Suggested bonuses of this module would be 35 percent for the cruiser class module, and 40 percent for the capital class module. Range of effect would be 15 km for the cruiser module, and 25 for the capital module. 4. The direct targeted effect would have a greater effectiveness on boosting the resistances of the target and the boost amount should be somewhere about 45% for a logistics cruiser and 55% for a carrier. The range on this would be effectively 30km for the cruiser module, and 50km for the capital module. 5. These effects would not be stacking penalized in any existing resistance category, however, they would not stack with each other, with the largest effect on a given ship being the one that applies, similar to how gang bonuses are applied. 6. Finally, this would be restricted to a single module per ship. Keep in Mind that at this point this is a very rough idea myself a few friends thought up that still needs polishing if it were to ever take effect or work for that matter. And possibly making some separate bonuses for the logistics cruisers and the carriers as well. and in this post I am referring to Motherships and Carriers as one in the same for mechanics sake and for typings sake.
Brock McF Caldari Einherjar Rising	Posted - 2007.10.22 04:57:00 - [199] Edited by: Brock McF on 22/10/2007 05:03:12 I doubt this will even be read, but I will add nonetheless. I do not like this IDEA. better-than-battleships-at-killing-stuff Sorry new guy, this is far from what moms and carriers are. Of course in certain situations it can get a little out of hand with capitals just like any _BLOB_ in eve, but its hardly these ships fault. A mom in lowsec does not justify this either. These ships are so so easy to kill by themselves it silly already. And BLOBing is EVE, so if fighter BLOBs is your justification you've missed the mark again. (how about making a fighter jammer with 100billion hp that cost 1mill isk HAHA) he-ships-that-keep-other-ships-alive-and-provide-them-with-additional-firepower You mean triage? Yes you already gave us this and it was an overwhelming disaster. Yes all us capital pilots know these ships are not BS's and never meant to fill that role. Unfortunately CCP wont allow us to do anything it seems(oh wait repair a POS _fun_). If you give me a carrier or mom that will allow me to get my fleet out of the BLOBs way and sneak under the radar or use a clone vats! I am all for it. Don't gimp this already pitiful class. If anything it needs a MAJOR overhaul. You are just now getting it too with the introduction of the Black-ops BS. We need dynamic not static mechanics. Brock Linkage
Synapse X Gallente Species 5618 R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.10.22 05:02:00 - [200] I just got my carrier skills and supporting skills trained, and got my carrier fitted out. If this goes through, I and my 3 accounts are out. There are too many games to choose from now to put up with this $hit.

Moizo FM Corp Insomnia.	Posted - 2007.10.22 05:05:00 - [201] Carriers in large numbers cause lag, we all know that, try doing something about that before you start nerfing, maybe carriers arent being used the way YOU want it to, simply because the lag is too great to do any logistical stuff, maybe we as players compensated for that... Try making fighters stronger in fewer numbers to decrease lag first... didnt read every post so my apoligies if its allready been said
prathe Minmatar Omega Enterprises Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2007.10.22 05:14:00 - [202] Edited by: prathe on 22/10/2007 05:14:33 well this is a long thread already so to sumarize your blog our response
Arsonin Flier	Posted - 2007.10.22 05:28:00 - [203] Originally by: MotherMoon Edited by: MotherMoon on 21/10/2007 12:43:17 I'll say it again a change could emcompass Carriers can still deploy tons of fighters and kill battlships with ease Mothership Ship that can spam lots of fghters but only with support near by... I just got it! Make the number of fighters it can control dependant on the number of other fleet ships in it's gang on the same grid. so you don't have to assign them to another player, you can just send out more becuase you have peope with you? control 5 more fighter per gang mate? thgis way if they hug a POS they are wrothless, but if they go out with ther ships they get more dps? or does that make it too much like a titan? you could make is so they get 5 fighters per friendly gang/fleet member locked. (and make fighters autoreturn when they unlock). Sort of as if they use the other ships to boost their signal.
Mr Kunta	Posted - 2007.10.22 06:01:00 - [204] Has CCP thought about all the carrier alts that become useless and not worth having? All those people giving up their 2nd 3rd acount because its just not wurth it anymore To be honest.. If this comes throug.. I my self will seriously be thinking of shutting down that account and only use it as an logistic alt.
Zachstar Combined Planetary Union	Posted - 2007.10.22 06:24:00 - [205] Nothing in this post is to be taken as fact. These are views of mine and are opinions NOT proven facts. CCP it saddens me to have to say this because of the implications (I feel) will be involved for the individual or group who started this idea. (View not proven fact) As a service that I pay for I expect quality and responsiveness that makes me feel my purchase of the service was a good one. However with the lag and constant issues (Personal View) I am feeling less and less certain that my purchase was a good one. (In my Opinion) Now this, An employee or group that (In my view, not proven fact) has great influence over the design of the game ( In my Opinion) saying something so amazingly silly and unrealistic (In my Opinion, NOT proven fact) It causes me to question their education and understanding of anything relating to realism or tactics. (In my Opinion) Had this been a service or software that I do not pay for (My View) I would accept that unless I can contribute to the project (My choice and view) at hand I have little room to note my views. (My View) However, this is a pay service and I need to make my views known. (Again, Opinions NOT proven facts) NOTE: (These are my VIEWS NOT Proven Facts) This employee or group has demonstrated to me (Individual making this post) that they do not possess the knowledge or capability to realistically plan and communicate in a way that will benefit the business of CCP or it's customers. (My View NOT proven fact) (Based on my views) As such I have chosen to recommend here the termination of employment of such individuals. (Based on my views not based on proven facts.) (In my Opinion) CCP for the benefit of your customers (In my view) I strongly suggest the removal of said individuals from your team. (Personal Opinion) I do not want them anywhere near the development of a game I pay to use. (In my Opinion) (In my opinion) I understand the probable dynamics of termination of employment and the sadness that will entail. However in this world of competition at very fast rates I personally feel that CCP can not afford to have such (In my view) business and customer loyalty wrecking ideas floating around and reaching the PR stage. (Personal Opinion) The views presented in this post are mine alone. They are not to be taken as factual but the views of the individual making this forum post. Laws protect people from slander and libel on public forums so these views are NOT again NOT to be taken as proven facts. They are only my views and opinions.
Kwint Sommer Incoherent Inc Otaku Invasion	Posted - 2007.10.22 06:25:00 - [206] There are ways in which this could be done that would actually work. Under the current system if you were to just implement the suggested changes I think you would see alliances seriously asking how much they can reprocesses a Mothership for. I, as a carrier pilot, wouldn't go so far as to quit EVE -unlike many of the whiners threaten to do every day- but I would be so outraged by it as to still be ***ing about it a solid two or three years after the fact and if I'm ***ing two years after it imagine the hell I'll be raising in the days after it.... Assigning fighters at the moment simply does not work, you end up entrusting 100M worth of extremely fragile fighters to each gangmate and sadly these people have no idea how to handle them. They treat them like normal, expendable drones and before your know it you're out 300M and since you can only use 5 fighters you have roughly the firepower of a BS. A carrier can now no longer beat a well-tanked BS in 1 on 1 combat. This is terrible change that might improve lag a little but will ultimately take an only partially functioning class of ships and make them almost completely broken. They'll be used to haul, rep POS shields and that's about it. You'll see carrier pilots attacking in a BS as they can do the same damage with a lot less risk and frankly a lot less hassle. A workable system: If the squad/wing/fleet commander could control 5 drones/fighters per ship in the squad/wing/fleet regardless of which ship within the squad/wing/fleet they come from. You would still have the limited number of drones which is good for lag and having them centrally controlled would be nice for the fleet and probably reduce lag a little further. Also this would bring carriers closer to to how they should work than they currently are, especially motherships. It's hard to believe that a supercapital costing 25B can only control 20 drones at a time. Under this system that supercapital could launch all of it's fighters or two or three hundred heavy drones if it were in a fleet that large. Under this system a large fleet of say 50 ships would have a few carriers pumping out heavy drones that would be controlled as a massive squadron moving in formation by the fleet commander. This way a capital can't fight worth a damn on its own but in a large fleet it can send squadron after squadron of small but crippling drones to ravage the opposing fleet. This is how carrier combat works, a squadron of tiny little fighters each armed with a single torpedo can take down the largest of battleships in mere minutes but the carrier can only operate with a large supporting fleet.
Gontard Minmatar E-Truth	Posted - 2007.10.22 06:25:00 - [207] This ideas are ********. You should have never been transfered from the Quality Assurance department to the Game Design team.
Damned Force	Posted - 2007.10.22 06:40:00 - [208] Edited by: Damned Force on 22/10/2007 06:40:13 If this nerf comes trough its a clear proof about, that the incompetence and stupidity of the balance team by CCP is endless
Daroek Ko'thon The Aforementioned	Posted - 2007.10.22 07:30:00 - [209] Originally by: Damned Force Edited by: Damned Force on 22/10/2007 06:40:13 If this nerf comes trough its a clear proof about, that the incompetence and stupidity of the balance team by CCP is endless If CCP is so incompetent and stupid, why don't you go make your own god damn game, since you're obviously so much better than they are. Let's see how good a game you can make...
Kriger x13	Posted - 2007.10.22 07:49:00 - [210] shakes head at CCP WTS: Carrier skillbook. Great as TP. .:: Kriger's gfx Factory :: x13 ::.



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.