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)
Damned Force	Posted - 2007.10.22 07:53:00 - [211] Originally by: Daroek Ko'thon 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... I don't sad all are. and they made a good game, but the "balance" changes they make last year are 90% bad. So the problem is with the balance team, as i wrote. And i make programs, not games, and i know if i tried to sell a product so buggy, and if i would have such bad support on customer reqs i could make the company close
Veluxor Tenacious Danes Ka-Tet	Posted - 2007.10.22 08:55:00 - [212] If you want to limit the number of fighters deployed, then up the damage instead, because a capital that doesn't even do the damage of a BS is just plain wrong. This makes no sense, and will not be accepted. The reason people pay a lot of ISK on a ship is to pwn people in lesser ships, otherwise what is the point. A Carrier is still to vulnerable to even a frigate, who can render is useless with remote sensor dampeners, and even prevent it from escaping.
DTee 0utbreak	Posted - 2007.10.22 09:06:00 - [213] Edited by: DTee on 22/10/2007 09:12:12 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. Have you ever fought 10 carriers? A small fleet could kill all their fighters while all 10 are dampened by 2 or 3 recons. The carriers would then be sitting ducks, Carriers are not over powered. As many have said do not fix something that isn't broken. Fix the lag. Fire this guy and write eve from scratch NOT using python :/
Daning	Posted - 2007.10.22 09:27:00 - [214] Edited by: Daning on 22/10/2007 09:28:15 Originally by: Damned Force Originally by: Daroek Ko'thon 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... I don't sad all are. and they made a good game, but the "balance" changes they make last year are 90% bad. So the problem is with the balance team, as i wrote. And i make programs, not games, and i know if i tried to sell a product so buggy, and if i would have such bad support on customer reqs i could make the company close It's obvious you don't have the slighest clue about what you're talking about. 'nuff said. (and yes, I accidently posted with an alt. I take full credit for this post //Daroek)
Riho Magnificent Beavers Exquisite Malevolence	Posted - 2007.10.22 09:31:00 - [215] anyone remember a game called Starwars Galaxies ???by the look of things it seems we are getting closer to that lvl of play
Jack Jombardo Amarr	Posted - 2007.10.22 09:34:00 - [216] Edited by: Jack Jombardo on 22/10/2007 09:37:25 Originally by: Zarrika Khan Carriers are not Solo Pwnmobiles. <- that is a period. /ironi on And that's why never see lowsec systems with toons of ship-/pod-kills where one MO gatecamps with Smartbombs who simply jumps out if it could become dangures for him becouse NOTHING can stop him from doing so. /ironi off maybe the Fighter-nerv is the wrong way. Just remove the ability to fitt ANY offense weapon system from MOs! EDIT: except Fighters ;)
Ione Hunt 0utbreak	Posted - 2007.10.22 09:39:00 - [217] Edited by: Ione Hunt on 22/10/2007 09:41:20 I thought about the Nyx, but if those changes get implemented I rather buy 300+ Dominix' EDIT: Make that 600 Dominix'...forgot about the Nyx fittings _______________
Jurgen Cartis Caldari Interstellar Corporation of Exploration	Posted - 2007.10.22 09:54:00 - [218] Originally by: Leo Jonson 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. Yes, if they want to see more Carriers in a logistics role, make Carriers be better at logistics, not ****tier at DPS. Some AoE resist augments and reps would be very nice. Definitely highslot mods, so it's a choice of fitting AoE resist or more DPS. And restricted to Carriers/MS/Logistics Cruisers. -------------------- ICE Blueprint Sales FIRST!! -Yipsilanti Pfft. Never such a thing as a "last chance". ;) -Rauth
Jurgen Cartis Caldari Interstellar Corporation of Exploration	Posted - 2007.10.22 09:58:00 - [219] Edited by: Jurgen Cartis on 22/10/2007 09:58:48 Originally by: Jack Jombardo Edited by: Jack Jombardo on 22/10/2007 09:37:25 Originally by: Zarrika Khan Carriers are not Solo Pwnmobiles. <- that is a period. /ironi on And that's why never see lowsec systems with toons of ship-/pod-kills where one MO gatecamps with Smartbombs who simply jumps out if it could become dangures for him becouse NOTHING can stop him from doing so. /ironi off maybe the Fighter-nerv is the wrong way. Just remove the ability to fitt ANY offense weapon system from MOs! EDIT: except Fighters ;) Try that in a Carrier (Carrier != MS) and see how long you live for. Supercaps should not be in lowsec, that's generally agreed upon. -------------------- ICE Blueprint Sales FIRST!! -Yipsilanti Pfft. Never such a thing as a "last chance". ;) -Rauth
Sith8 The Collective Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2007.10.22 10:02:00 - [220] Terrible, terrible idea. I¦m perfectly fine with a MS being able to chew up a Battleship in 20 seconds. I mean c¦mon guys do we really want every single MS to be accompanied by 5 rifter dudes just to be able to use the fighters. Bleh.... Try better m8¦s

1Of9 Gallente The Circle STYX.	Posted - 2007.10.22 10:18:00 - [221] Originally by: SpaceTrucker 3000 since battleships and command ships melt in miliseconds. err .. sry you are wrong. It's not milliseconds, it's INSTANT, once a cap locks a BS, its dead. There's not even need to launch drones
Galaxyes Omega Enterprises Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2007.10.22 10:35:00 - [222] Originally by: Arsonin Flier 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. well... what if your MS is doing a logistics run (since they are good at that kind of thing) and you get jumped.... and all you have in grid is your own damn cyno alt.... now it has no way to defend itself... you could pretty much kill a 20b isk ship (that took about a month to manufacture, and even longer to build up the minerals, or isk for and did all the logistics to make it possible) with a bunch of battelships and a dictor.... wow sign me up for 1 of these new wastes of time and money.... why waste the isk when i can just jump into 1 of these new Bull#@#$ cloaking cyno jumping bs that can jump anywhere in the fracking eve-verse.... [(another great idea)insirt more sarcasm here]
Ledena Mala	Posted - 2007.10.22 10:38:00 - [223] Pro: 1. Less fighters out less lag? Then you have to nerf all other ships who can control drones proportionally. 2. Giving opportunity to new players to feel more secure in 0.0? By definition 0.0 is insecure. New players have safe heaven called Empire. Con: 1. You're making carrier and mothership less then equal versus one battleship. If so, I want all isk I've invested in skills, ship and modules back by CCP in order to buy 600+ battleships. 2. Carriers and motherships are now way to easy to be killed. With this nerf you're denying those players very right to defend. 3. If this imposed, waste population of players (even those rookies who are whining about carriers because their goal is battleship in next month or two) are going to loose purpose of getting higher level of game. Thus, they'll loose interest and leave.
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2007.10.22 10:44:00 - [224] If you want some reason for the possible changes, read thie theread Low se gatecamp in mothership. At least part of the reasons that CCP has for thinking (note that is is thinking, not jet even in test) about changing motherships is this kind of behavjour.
Legionar	Posted - 2007.10.22 10:48:00 - [225] Originally by: Venkul Mul If you want some reason for the possible changes, read thie theread Low se gatecamp in mothership. At least part of the reasons that CCP has for thinking (note that is is thinking, not jet even in test) about changing motherships is this kind of behavjour. That post addresses smart bombs, not fighters.
DT3 The Huns	Posted - 2007.10.22 10:50:00 - [226] 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?
Icome4u Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L	Posted - 2007.10.22 10:55:00 - [227] Originally by: Daroek Ko'thon 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... We are the one ******* paying for a service here buddy. When you get +1300 posts about how stupid and incompetent CCP is atm i think something is to be considered. This sig demonstrate the problem is not drones or fighters but the amount of people show up to blobs and fleets.
Pedronicus Caldari The Chaotic Order	Posted - 2007.10.22 10:59:00 - [228] I don't have carriers and not plan on having them as i am still very new to Eve but just nerfing things after things while someone in CCP got drunk and put up this utter crap is beyond my imagination, there were some problems with motherships like low sec camping and stuff but to come up with those problems with this planned nerf shows nothing but lack of gaming knowledge on the game developer's part. ffs these are capitol ships and not supposed to fly just the same 5 drones like other normal ships, even guardian can field more . really what i don't like is CCP coming with a big nerf like this and without any say from players who have spent their countless time and skills for these ships, yeah they are only testing this on test server and it is still a plan, did any of their previous plans got stopped because player's community didn't wanted it? -------------------------------------------------- Holiness is in right action, and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves.
Sokratesz Paradox v2.0	Posted - 2007.10.22 11:20:00 - [229] ccp wtf Paradox V2.0 is recruiting!
BCBArclight Odessa Operations	Posted - 2007.10.22 11:20:00 - [230] I'm sorry to say but this is a terrible road to follow. As the game is now, personally if I see a carrier/MS im thinking crap I'm dead (as it should be, these things are meant to be mean) Now if this is put into effect I'll be thinking, * free officer loot* Drone spam is the carrier/MS weapon just as lasers are the geddons (Yes I fly amarr ). This gimpping of the weapons of this ship class will mean the carriers will not be used in anything.... at all. No one is going to spend billions on a giant logistics ship to sit there repping thier friends when they can jump in a BS and blast something to the stone age having so much more fun. They certainly wont be used in combat... not with the lag fest it is atm assigning drones to gang members will be terrible... as it is now during a fleet battle getting drones out of the bay is a nightmare. They wont be able to defend themselves at all with only 5 drones. If this goes forward I see carriers being phased out of fights in general, and MS being limited to the hauling jobs they are sometimes used for now. /not signed Odessa Operations are Recruiting

Vinifera Gallente Asguard Security Service	Posted - 2007.10.22 11:27:00 - [231] Edited by: Vinifera on 22/10/2007 11:28:44 CCP, we understand your concerns about carrier blobbing, but this is not the way to fix it. It also creates a real problem for very small corporations that use carriers and can't field a huge support fleet everytime they want to make logistical runs. Those corps/players are going to get hung out to dry if you implement this nerf. This is a huge penalty against many other types of play and uses of a carrier (which go beyond the carrier blobbing carried out by the large alliances).
Bartul Zuhovski	Posted - 2007.10.22 11:36:00 - [232] If CCP continues to even consider doing such nonsense who will have the will to train long skills needed for more demanding ships? When you train for some ship itÆs because of its capabilities, not the looks.
Attack Dog	Posted - 2007.10.22 11:54:00 - [233] Resist the earge 2 listen 2 whinning forum trolls whos sole purpose in life is 2 make us all fly around in ibis's. Everything in eve has a counter, learn, adapt, survive. Instead of calling the nerfbat to swing may i suggest PLAYING the game. Bubbles anyone, Nos, Neut's, bumping, smartbombs? no? must be way to hard to do anything like that Heres a new fresh idea, lets find a way to beat them instead of the "mommy mommy mommy (insert crying) that mean scary capital ship wtf pwned me (more crying here) i want u 2 fight my battles mommy" approch let the players of eve draw a line in the sand Make lov...stratagies not nerfs
Dutch Mill Dawn of a new Empire Pure.	Posted - 2007.10.22 12:04:00 - [234] Edited by: Dutch Mill on 22/10/2007 12:05:06 What a F*CKING waste of time and money if CCP continues this!!.. We should all quit Eve if this happens.. Hurt em where they feel it.. And NO you can't have my stuff and my Exotic Dancers!!!
TechnoMag Minmatar Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.10.22 12:04:00 - [235] Originally by: Icome4u Edited by: Icome4u on 21/10/2007 15:44:23 FCK YOU CCP! FCK YOU! You fcking do this and i'm out. FCKING BLLSHT. Got that? STOP NERFING SHIPS LIKE THIS! Do you even realize you are RUINING the game? What the heck is next? Cut all high damage slots by half to make fights last longer? Hey how about freaking cutting all dps in half and making all shield boosters and armor reppers have a 200% bonus! Yay longer fights!!! You guys are ruining this game, it sucks! You CAN'T nerf ships like this, we pay for something and you CHANGE it? That's bad unethical business. If Ford ever came knocking at my door to tell me they are nerfing my car and changing the engine to some **** 4cylinder id tell them to fck off and introduce them to my lawyer. Get real CCP, stop ruining the game for vets/old players just to show noobs you 'care' about them. FCK YOU! /signed looks like with this kind of reply's titan&mommy was nerfed and now carriers remmeber that titannought with thousands of reply's where was only one word: "/signed". I think its the CCP fear this reply :) EULA 7. CONDUCT A. 1. You may not take any action that imposes an unreasonable or disproportionately large load on the System.
TechnoMag Minmatar Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.10.22 12:22:00 - [236] Edited by: TechnoMag on 22/10/2007 12:23:37 Edited by: TechnoMag on 22/10/2007 12:22:10 BTW even in packs carriers can be popped like cornflowers by conventional fleet if that fleet know what is doing. Look at this fight: http://www.killboard.net/fleetbattle/113/ 4 carriers + 1 mommy destroyed by 20 BS's (maybe less) + support ... 3-4bill fleet isk value killed 1mommy +4carrier's ( 20-30bill isk value). I dont think was fair for that mommy and carriers to pop like how they pop from only 20bs they need to be boosted a little bit not nerfed. That mommy killed in the all fight only 1ceptor 1 dictor 1hac 1bc. U think its overpowered : HELL NO!!! MOMMY'S STILL NEED A LITTLE BOOST. CARRIER'S need maybe a boost in targeting ... in fleet its hard to repair friendly's until u lock them they pop' ps: im not carrier/mom pilot and im not intend to be one soon. EULA 7. CONDUCT A. 1. You may not take any action that imposes an unreasonable or disproportionately large load on the System.
Module Crypto BALKAN EXPRESS	Posted - 2007.10.22 12:29:00 - [237] /signed Very bad idea imho ---
Attack Dog	Posted - 2007.10.22 12:30:00 - [238] Edited by: Attack Dog on 22/10/2007 12:33:18 /signed, useless nerf ccp if u haven't noticed nerfing is not progresing, its doing the complete oposite
Min Chen	Posted - 2007.10.22 12:40:00 - [239] Congratulations CCP you have once again outdone yourselves. Instead of fixing things that matter like lag, you continue to change things that dont need it. Have you even played the game Eve Online, Mr. quality assurance...errr I mean eve developement team guy? Looks like anyone can start working for CCP and making any insane change they think is a good idea. Hey while your at it here are some other changes to carrier/motherships you should make, 5% bonus to cargo bay capacity per carrier level, 500% bonus to shield transfer array while used on POS shields per level, and 10% bonus to man I wish I could have my skillpoints back per level. See I could work for CCP too. They are capital ships, they are very expensive, they take alot of training, THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO WIPE OUT BATTLESHIPS.
Sinistro	Posted - 2007.10.22 13:16:00 - [240] Edited by: Sinistro on 22/10/2007 13:16:51 I think if any with the right state of mind knew this change was coming they would not have spend the time to fly carriers and spend the cash for books, ship and mods on it. The carriers with 5 fighters max then the fighters should have an increase of damage and resistances like the drones got when the max drones in space change came. Like 20% more damage and resistances. Then assigning fighters to others in gang next to the 5 ( with the extra 20% damage and resistance bonus ) what the carrier can deploy itself is the gang asistance role and those fighters wont get that 20% damage bonus. This way the carrier still does a lot of damage ( damage and survival off 5 fighters = 20 max fighters that can be done with max skills and mods ) and lag will be reduced when that is the idea behind the fighter reduction inspace. If the carriers will get a change that they cant give a knock out punch I will leave eve and YES you can have my stuff with the 2 acounts 50 mill+ skill points characters as bonus.



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.