EVE Search - carrier, moms nerf incoming

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)
Derious Incognito Inc	Posted - 2007.10.22 13:18:00 - [241] /signed
MacQueen Amarr GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.10.22 13:24:00 - [242] Thank you CCP. Not for the nerf, as a carrier pilot I don't really care that much about it, but the amount of nerd rage this has spawned off in this thread is just glorious.
Benn Helmsman Caldari Dark Prophecy Inc.	Posted - 2007.10.22 13:35:00 - [243] Edited by: Benn Helmsman on 22/10/2007 13:35:37 Originally by: MacQueen Thank you CCP. Not for the nerf, as a carrier pilot I don't really care that much about it, but the amount of nerd rage this has spawned off in this thread is just glorious. Yeah its so funny to see all these "elite" player just throwing their own "adapt or die" argument away like somebody would do with a leprosy infected limb. Havent had such a good laugh in a loong time.
Trask Kilraen The Older Gamers R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.10.22 13:53:00 - [244] Originally by: Benn Helmsman Havent had such a good laugh in a loong time. Laugh it up. We'll see how YOU'RE laughing when you've wasted months of training time and Billions of ISK on something that gets nerfed like there's no tomorrow. ------------------------------------------
trunk's	Posted - 2007.10.22 14:00:00 - [245] wts carrier with fighters
Guardian Stella	Posted - 2007.10.22 14:03:00 - [246] This should have been a standard a long time ago. This will also balance the economy in the long run. Paying billions for mods, cmon...this is space game or module shop game? PS. Remember this -Hey guess what? -What? -I played this new handsome game this weekend, Eveàspace and stuff. -Oh nice. -Butàhmmmàone module is worth more than the ship itself. (carrier) -What you mean? -Yeah man, I have this new Porsche in my garage modified with 613HP engine. -Really? -Yeah, it uses special compression to squeeze up more HP, the piece itself worth 2.4 million. -Oh nice, but at that price you could a F1. -No men, thatÆs only one part, will every part in it, itÆs worth more than the NASA space shuttle men. But IÆm still buying this car man.
Princess Jodi Vendetta Underground Rule of Three	Posted - 2007.10.22 14:07:00 - [247] Hell NO! WTF are they thinking! I've seen a lot of proposals in my 3 years of Eve, but this is the ABSOLUTE worst! If CCP's problem is they dont like the way I use MY ship, they can go **** themselves!
Waut 0utbreak	Posted - 2007.10.22 14:08:00 - [248] Am I glad I never bothered to train for capships again In Soviet EVE, roids pop YOU
HARYBARY Amarr Bulgarian Mafia Squad Sons of Tangra	Posted - 2007.10.22 14:17:00 - [249] I see that 99% off people who write on this 9 pages post are against that new nerf. The only problem is that even if we write 1000 pages and all players are against that nerf, CCP will implement it. This post will never change their plans. YES - We spend an year learning 16+ rang skills and billions of ISK but who cares. Soon we will have new toys. We will start learn new skills, we will spend billions for that new ships and we feel their power - CCP will nerf them too - as usual.
Sperrzone Stardust Heavy Industries	Posted - 2007.10.22 14:20:00 - [250] Edited by: Sperrzone on 22/10/2007 14:20:46 When this really comes up I call for a large Carrier / Mothership self destructing event. As it will render Capships pretty useless, in current lag/desynch state of TQ
Aceoil Murder-Death-Kill	Posted - 2007.10.22 14:21:00 - [251] I do not even fly capitals and I am against this nerf. T'was a bad idea.
Cythrawl Caldari Central Defiance	Posted - 2007.10.22 14:32:00 - [252] The problem isn't carriers. Carriers are fine. Its the fact that someone can get together 50 of them to field them at once and have them all launch fighters that's the problem. The lag is inherent from all the actions going on on the field of battle. That's the only reason they would need to nerf drone boats like this. The problem I see here is apparently you've never allowed Zulupark to fly a carrier solo against a small gank gang. I've been in a gang that held a chimera for 10 mins before we accidentally lost point with one of our intercepter pilots when our main tackler, an arazu, had to warp out due to drone aggro. If not for that little bit of a break, the carrier pilot would have been held until we either got bored, or reinforcements could come 25 jumps to kill it. Oh, and it launched fighters twice. Both times our small 7-man gang, with only 1 bs shot down fighters and forced it to rely on launching other drones. Still cost him over 100m in drones during that engagement. So you can't say that a carrier pilot is too buff because he can launch all those drones. In fact, I've tanked a group of fighters in a kestrel once because I didn't move. They couldn't track due to their own movement and my size so I could just sit there and watch them miss. If you instead remove the ability for him to launch other drones en masse, you affectively make him absolutely pointless because a Dominix can do the job for about 1/100th of the price. And for all those fighters that those carriers have, a titan can instantly remove them from the field of battle. Multiple titans could incinerate the entire cost of a fleet of BS over a matter of minutes should they time their application of doomsday devices correctly. Nerf Titans so that their already one-trick pony ability is useless. Oh wait. Black ops. Right. Go ahead devs, let this one happen. You might as well come right out and say its time for you to screw someone over hard enough that it costs you money in subscriptions rather than focus on truly affective ways to change the problem. Sound judgment. Kinda like how its good to stab yourself in the leg with a knife. .:. Originally by: Krazy Bitsch Originally by: Virtuality In before the first troll. i do believe you are too late for this....
Alyxa Mahan	Posted - 2007.10.22 14:32:00 - [253] Originally by: prathe well this is a long thread already so to sumarize your blog our response and this thread
hankey Minmatar The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx	Posted - 2007.10.22 14:46:00 - [254] As Carrier Pilot i don't wanna be support boy too much, it even hurts when triange module cuts your main ability of being "C A R R I E R". When i was growing pilot on a dominix i hardly wanted to have more than this 5 drones at a time!!! And now i'm piloting thanatos while waiting for my Nyx... Don't do such reckless step!!! Don't take from us our fighters!!!
Kagura Nikon Minmatar MASS HOMICIDE Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.10.22 15:10:00 - [255] Originally by: TechnoMag 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. That mom had 11 kill on that fight ( I know, I passed the Kmails to our Kboard). And it died because you simply overhelmed our light support, so we had no chance to get rid of the 11 dictors that were in system. Also the mom had chance to jump out several times but lag simply didnt allowed. Its not case of motherships being underpowered. Its a case our support lost the fight. I do think a mothership should no way be able to face 20 BS and 11 dictors (and that speaking from someone that helped build that specific mom) If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
NaRoaN	Posted - 2007.10.22 15:40:00 - [256] NaRoaN: look at last line of my post "/sarcrasm off" means i was beeing sarcastinc in that post. Sorry bout that =)
Shadowraven213 Caldari Madison Industrial Co. Sylph Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.22 15:46:00 - [257] Carriers = NOT solo ships Motherships = NOT solo ships Nerf = why was it not this way when they came out? This gets a huge thumbs up from me, now just forget all the cap-blobber whines and do it!
Trask Kilraen The Older Gamers R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.10.22 15:50:00 - [258] Originally by: Shadowraven213 Edited by: Shadowraven213 on 22/10/2007 15:48:07 Carriers = NOT solo ships Motherships = NOT solo ships Nerf = why was it not this way when they came out? This gets a huge thumbs up from me, now just forget all the cap-blobber whines and do it! but you should fix the delegate ship bonus thing for the thanatos first Not taking your meds? Solo carriers and mommas are dead meat. :rolleyes: Friggin morons ruining this game. ------------------------------------------
DangerP Mixed Nuts	Posted - 2007.10.22 16:02:00 - [259] It has been a long time since I responded to a post on the forums. As a carrier pilot in a smaller corp, this is one of the worst ideas I have seen to date in this game. There is a problem in lowsec with capital ships, but I don't want to see myself relagated to flying a bil isk transport ship. This is really a slap in the face to many players who have invested time and isk to buy the skills, train the skills, and purchase the ship and fittings. Hopefully sense will break out on this one, but after watching countless other nerfs I suppose I'll just watch another ship lose it's effectiveness. Danger
Hyakuchan Earth Federation Space Force	Posted - 2007.10.22 16:18:00 - [260] Edited by: Hyakuchan on 22/10/2007 16:24:13 It has been said before, and will be said again: The problem is not carriers and moms in fleets. The problem is that they have no flaws fighting solo. Of all the capital classes, moms are the only ship that does not fear random encounters, because nothing short of a concerted attack can threaten them. A passing dread, honortanked or not, cannot hope to take down a mom. A lone TITAN, the largest and most expensive ship in the **** game, cannot successfully down a lone mom. Motherships are the superpredator of eve when they weren't intended to be. Now, I don't believe that nerfing them is entirely the solution. What is needed is a Juggernought class with a focused, single target DD weapon. Something that can warp in and inflict hideous damage on a mom in short order with a massive alpha strike. Because that's what moms do right now. They are the alpha strike ship with their fighters, when they weren't really supposed to be. It just happened to be the case that dreads were made too weak, and titans too expensive. So there is nothing in the capital ship lineup that is designed to do with guns what the mom does with drones. Battleships have been the solution for a while since, even if they aren't strong enough to take down a mom, they are at least cheaper in that it costs less to field a mom-killing fleet then it does to field a mom. But since fielding a mom-killing fleet requires a fleet worth of players, we reach an impasse that makes moms practically invincible. -------------------------------------------------- FRIGATS Coalition FREGE-Red-IAC-Goon-AAA-Tau-Southerncross "We gonna beat you with frigats."
Angor The JORG Corporation Methods of Mayhem Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.22 16:19:00 - [261] Edited by: Angor on 22/10/2007 16:19:28 CCP Look at this killmail and tell me if carriers need nerfing.. KILLMAIL bah... nerf this V _______________________________ [ 2007.06.07 21:07:22 ] FrankyWave > ransom me guys I am joining XElas !!!
Metalliaxia	Posted - 2007.10.22 16:50:00 - [262] This nerf would suck, but if the goal is to lower the # of fighters/drones in the battlefield, the devs can start by changing DCUs to add more damage/hitpoints to drones instead of allowing more. This would be something I might be interested in. Another thing, devs could just make fighters do 2x the damage by default and only allow 5 instead of 10. I am okay with this too.
Pociomundo Gallente Aliastra	Posted - 2007.10.22 17:12:00 - [263] Edited by: Pociomundo on 22/10/2007 17:17:45 If you wanna reduce lag the the Goon proposed idea of 5 Fighters out at a time but each Fighter has 2x dps and hp of current ones and drone units give a +dps increase to all fighters is fine. This CCP propsed idea will simply create much more lag because now for every carrier you need 2 - 3 gang mates, mom's need 4 - 5 gang mates, well mom's are now a joke really. If you won't do that then skill cost and time refund for training Carriers please. Stick it into Battlecruisers and HAC >.< _________________________________________________________
Marcus Quo Gallente Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.10.22 17:22:00 - [264] I just sort of skimmed the topic, and most of what I saw was people saying "lol just fly with friends noobs, there goes your wtfpwn solo ship!" I'm not even going to get into the ways that a carrier solo is just asking to die even with current game mechanics because this change has NOTHING to do with solo/small fleet combat. The issue CCP is trying to change is carrier blobs. However, they're not thinking clearly. All this is going to do is give a huge advantage to the defenders. Let's assume two alliances are going to have a fight. Alliance A is defending with 40 carriers and 60 battleships, alliance B is jumping in 40 carriers and 60 battleships. Fair fight, right? Not at all. If this change goes through, alliance A will have time to assign all drones and get the maximum DPS out of their carriers. Alliance B will be jumping into a laggy system, and between black screens, crashes, and desyncs, they will be unable to assign their fighters. Alliance's A's carriers will end up doing TWICE the DPS of alliance B's. Let's be honest here, defenders already have it pretty easy with cyno jammers and sov 4. They really don't need any more advantages, especially ones based on lag instead of game mechanics. I agree something needs to be done about carrier blobs, but this is not the solution.
Coquillette Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.10.22 17:25:00 - [265] I an oh-so laughing at all this whinage...
Suey Ruthless Military Midgets	Posted - 2007.10.22 17:27:00 - [266] tnx for wasting all my training time. carrier gonna be poo now. Ruthless Industri at a new level.
Meepie	Posted - 2007.10.22 17:29:00 - [267] Originally by: Kay Han 5 fighters are pretty much tankable TBFH. So Carriers will die to random BS squads. 5 Fighters essentially = 500 dps, which is very easily tankable, by T1 Battlecruisers even. Some BS can tank Carriers as they are now, but apparantly CCP Balancing Devs don't actually play EVE so don't worry guys, the future is bright !
Danjira Ryuujin	Posted - 2007.10.22 18:13:00 - [268] Edited by: Danjira Ryuujin on 22/10/2007 18:14:20 Originally by: Pociomundo Edited by: Pociomundo on 22/10/2007 17:17:45 If you wanna reduce lag.... < Why does everyone think this is about lag. The dev blog mentioned nothing about lag. The issue at hand is people treating capitals like oversized battleships, when they were never intended for that role. I'm too noobish to comment on the balance of the proposed change. That last part is important, "propsed change". After all it isnt final, its really a crime to call it a proposed change. The dev blog even said they want the communities feedback on it. Stop calling it a nerf, and for gods sake stop blaming this on zulupark. Don't shoot the messenger.
Cyberus Caldari Wreckless Abandon Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.10.22 18:22:00 - [269] WTB: 'Unnerf modifier skillbook" 20% less change to get nerf per skill lvl. Although i do not fly the cap ships i still could use that skillbook :)
Damned Force	Posted - 2007.10.22 18:26:00 - [270] Originally by: Danjira Ryuujin Edited by: Danjira Ryuujin on 22/10/2007 18:14:20 Originally by: Pociomundo Edited by: Pociomundo on 22/10/2007 17:17:45 If you wanna reduce lag.... < Why does everyone think this is about lag. The dev blog mentioned nothing about lag. The issue at hand is people treating capitals like oversized battleships, when they were never intended for that role. I'm too noobish to comment on the balance of the proposed change. That last part is important, "propsed change". After all it isnt final, its really a crime to call it a proposed change. The dev blog even said they want the communities feedback on it. Stop calling it a nerf, and for gods sake stop blaming this on zulupark. Don't shoot the messenger. 1st. Right u cant know if this is a nerf, but is it. 2nd. we speak about lag, because thats what they should resolve and not the carriers 3rd. u right is not Zuluparks fault. is the fault of the whole balancing team

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.