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)
Crohnx Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.10.21 11:39:00 - [1] http://myeve.eve-online.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=512 Originally by: zulu Hi, Iæm Zulupark and recently transferred from the Quality Assurance department to the Game Design team. IÆve been with CCP for just under two years now and donÆt plan on going anywhere. Say hello to your newest balancer (I still haven't received a nerfbat though). Iæm posting here now because the last few days weæve been looking at the way capital and supercapital ships are functioning on Tranquility, and to be honest weære a little concerned with the direction itæs taking. What we want is pretty basic: We want to make fighter wielding capital ships more reliant on their support fleet and less of a direct nber deathbringer. How are we going to do it? Well, we have an idea, and before you go ballistic remember that this is an idea and weære still working on it: We plan on changing the way fighters work, and have it so that you can still launch all the fighters you want (within limits of your ship/skills) but you can only directly control 5 of them at a time. That means that a carrier/mothership can launch 5 fighters, assign them to a gang mate, launch 5 more, assign them to another gang mate etc. etc. 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 lilæ friends in the fleet and send them forth to be the messengers of your burning fury. Remember, weære not messing with the final total amount of fighters you can launch and delegate, just the amount you can control and delegate at a time. You can of course also launch 5 fighters and make them attack a target of your own choice, if it pleases you. But wait! Thereæs more! Not only do we want to limit the amount of fighters you can launch, but also the amount of drones! Yes, we want to limit carriers and motherships just like other ships, i.e. they should only be able to field 5 regular drones at any given time. Thatæs it! No beer for you at Fanfest! Awww man you can't let me run dry. But seriously, the reason we want to implement something like this is that we feel that capital ships are being used way too much as better-than-battleships-at-killing-stuff ships, when we in fact think that they should be used more as the-ships-that-keep-other-ships-alive-and-provide-them-with-additional-firepower ships. Did that make sense? Probably not, but anyway, we hope you get the gist the direction we want to move them in and the way we see that happening. Remember that this is still just an idea and we want your feedback on this, so please, post constructively and you just might make a difference in the (EVE) universe. oh and can u erase like 60mil of my skillpoints while ure at it so those 1 week old players can stop whining and play with people that are in here 3+ years , really wtf
dimensionZ Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.10.21 11:41:00 - [2] Yeah insta killing 60m battleships in a 20b ship was really too easy. Every pilots and there mother got one just for that! Okay enough with sarcasm. I can understand that they are pwn machines versus battleships, but hey, having it in the open is already a huge danger (remember, 20b!) and now you want to nerf it _again_ ? Way to go... ----------------------------------------
MetalI Union Of Xtreme Military	Posted - 2007.10.21 11:45:00 - [3] WTF this better not happen . What a waste of skill points and isk if it does
DeadProphet Black Eclipse Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.10.21 11:47:00 - [4] jesus, at least leave the drones as they are...you really dont want a 20bn ship to be able to defend itself against smaller ships do you :(
Jita Alt	Posted - 2007.10.21 11:49:00 - [5] Holy christ batman! a 20 bil ship can kill a 100 mil ship??? osht osht osht So when are we nerfing battleships so they can't kill cruisers anymore? __________________________________ Calling you an idiot on a forum nearby
Maeltstome Minmatar Caldari Navy Raiders Praesidium Libertatis	Posted - 2007.10.21 11:49:00 - [6] The main complaint about Fighter carrying ships is the un-scrammable (ew immune) element of the mothership. Anyone who has spent the last 2 years playing the game rather than reading the forums would realise that fighters die VERY easily under any form of fire. Its basically an un-tanked cruiser. I sense another tuxford coming along. As a final point: Most people who see a carrier think of them as a fighter dispenser to be used at there disposal, but after doing this once and realising how little idea of how to use fighters most BS pilots have, you will think twice about assigning them. Ever lost 100mil worth of fighters (which are a PAIN to haul) in a matter of seconds, cause that BS pilot you trusted 'forgot' to return themn once they came under fire from a smartbombing capital? Id rather launch 5 and control them myself than loose 10 to fleet stupidity.
Glarion Garnier Solar Wind	Posted - 2007.10.21 11:50:00 - [7] Havent you heard there is a quota on nerfs they have to fullfill. ok joking aside Perhaps it might be a time to really reflect this chainge. Does this come from a point where too many fighters in the air is once more a lag fest thing. So in the old days it was high SP BS pilots and their 15 drones . now in the battlefield its high SP capital ship pilots and their fighters ..
the W0rker Federation of Synthetic Persons STYX.	Posted - 2007.10.21 12:01:00 - [8] Edited by: the W0rker on 21/10/2007 12:04:09 Edited by: the W0rker on 21/10/2007 12:01:36 Originally by: MetalI WTF this better not happen . What a waste of skill points and isk if it does /signed speding skills and isk+ for a year+ into a ship and u cant kill a bs anymore. if this happens i will switch to bs again - isk/dmg is much better than
Three0fNine FinFleet Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.10.21 12:06:00 - [9] first of April? no, check I did not want this mothership anyways....
ExTrEmM OCL Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.10.21 12:09:00 - [10] i was hesitating for a Hel but this problem is solved

FomkA Red Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.21 12:11:00 - [11] Thx CCP, i have wasted 25mln SP for being "Support and healer for my little friends and gang mates". CCP it's time to nerf BS! I cant tank close combat battleship on my Punisher! It kills me in 1 sec! The general idea of MS got screwed up by forum trolls and carebears... Welcome to eve-carebirea?
Tempelier Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.10.21 12:13:00 - [12] Edited by: Tempelier on 21/10/2007 12:13:50 Why not work on your "core system" first! to finally let you play in fleet fights and not staring at your monitor for about 15 mins.. Nerving everything is not helping your main problem.. so I petition!
Fuyuka Yasuda	Posted - 2007.10.21 12:16:00 - [13] Woot with gallente bs at 3 my dominix can kill a MS !!! Dominix > MS nerf the dominix !!!
Inflexible Rytiri Lva	Posted - 2007.10.21 12:17:00 - [14] NOT funny. 0/10
Xaarist FinFleet Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.10.21 12:23:00 - [15] i do not know where the "newest balancer" has got his information from. maybe he should go and fly a mothership or a carrier on his own at least once. you logic is so stupid, i can't seem to get it. a BS can kill a t1 cruiser within seconds, so you need to nerf the BS guns and make them controllable by gang members (comparable to the POS gunnery stuff) because it is overpowered otherwise. BS/cruiser ISK ratio = 10. carrier/BS ISK ratio = 10, too. mothership/BS ISK ratio = 200+. there you go. about mommas: seriously, who would want a 20-30 billion logistics ship? a carrier has almost the same capabilities. if you even consider what is written in the dev blog (i still think it is some late april fools day joke) i got to tell you that you forgot a lot of things, for example drones and fighters can be easily killed, they have travel times, they still have a stupid KI, they get stuck and you loose them on disconnects, ... do i have to write more? have you tried focussing fire on anything smaller than a cap ship with a carrier fleet, and have you been sucessful? BS can focus fire and melt a BS faster than carriers, nerf focus fire. seriously, start thinking, and start playing your game so you know how it really works for your customers. i am a mothership pilot with maxed skills (apart from fighters 5), and i have never seen a BS melt in 0.2 seconds. also, i have killed plenty more BS with my other accounts than with my mom. i can tank the fighters of my mom with a t1 setup BS (everybody can if he knows what he's doing) for quite some time even. the facts you base your approach on are simply untrue. now reveal to us what the real reason is your are thinking about this. lag cause by fighters hint hint hint... if this is true, just remember what happens if you not only have 50 carriers, but 50 carriers + 2 ceptors per side per system, plus support fleet. again, sorry if that's a bit harsh and too much sarcasm, but i get really ****ed if i read something like this, even if it is just an "idea". ---------------- Your signature image exceeds the maximum allowed filesize of 24000 bytes -Sahwoolo Etoophie
Kern Walzky Caldari Tenacious Danes Ka-Tet	Posted - 2007.10.21 12:24:00 - [16] What is this... you want to nerf capitals now.. im so glad i did not get my momie ship then... its a wate of money now.. CCP..really... why this change.. ??? A carrier can kill a BS..yes ofcause it can.. a BS can kill a cruiser... its how it works..bigger ships can pwn smaller ships...but always with the danger of loosing it to many smaller ships. Delegate to support...well you cant see the life of your fighter, the lag you wont notice that 5 of your fighters are doing nothing... If this change comes you will see carriers and momies hugging the pos shield delegated all fighters.. BOOORING !!! then there is only logistic ability left... Sorry CCP but this change sucks BIG time Kern Walzky "Freedom is part of life"
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2007.10.21 12:25:00 - [17] In LARGE battles, it renders ATTACKING force carriers ALMOST COMPLETELY useless, due to lag... and DEFENDING ones slightly less effective due to occasional dropouts. In smaller-sized battles, it adds a big hassle of bothering to reassign fighters. In solo battles (or carrier-only/mostly gangs), it nerfs carrier firepower hugely. You fix one issue of the situation (solo pwnmobile or mostly-carrier strike teams), while adding a lot of unnecessary hassle. If you REALLY want to do this, start thinking of ways to remove the "fighter delegation" mechanism altogether, and replacing it with a "fleet commander fighter control" tactical screen or somesuch, where the NUMBER of fighters in space alloocated to "fleet command" is linked to the fleet size in the current battle, and fighters are EITHER completely autonomous OR the fleet commander can see every local grid locked target and assign up to 5 fighters per target lock on that target. _ 1\|2\|3
Zylatis Umbra Congregatio	Posted - 2007.10.21 12:28:00 - [18] Well if this goes through id like about 1b worth of skills back and remove those skills from my head please :S
Trass Caldari DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.10.21 12:30:00 - [19] Edited by: Trass on 21/10/2007 12:33:12 Originally by: dimensionZ Yeah insta killing 60m battleships in a 20b ship was really too easy. More like 100m bs vs 50.000m mothership (including fittings). And no - it should be easy. I'm not a mom pilot and probably never be, but these nerfs is like other stupid ccp ideas.... really S_t_u_p_i_d
Kay Han Caldari Friendship 7 Corporation STYX.	Posted - 2007.10.21 12:36:00 - [20] Edited by: Kay Han on 21/10/2007 12:38:06 basically i agree with the devblog. there are FAR to much drones in space atm, when a carrier / MS blob warps into battle. Drecreasing teh number of active drones may be a good way to reduce the lag caused through fighters. So far so good. BUT one thing really makes me think, the desingers / ballancers are either plain Stupid or ignorant. Carriers won¦t be able to defend herselfs anymore. 5 fighters are pretty much tankable TBFH. So Carriers will die to random BS squads. Not every1 has support with him when moving a carrier from low sec system a) to low sec system b) f.e. I really hope you¦ve taken this into account so either Increase the damage from fighters if they are NOT delegated by 50% per drone. Or change the avanced drone interfacing Skill. +1 drone and +20 damage per level if teh drone isn¦t delegated. If there will be no change, this will be one of the baddest nerfs ever. and always remember Cruiser kills frig, bs kills cruiser, cap ship kills bs. Thats the way it should work. kay Originally by: CCP Atropos Personally I think Amarr ships should consume slaves in a similar way that other ships consume ammunition.

Elmicker Black Sea Industries Cult of War	Posted - 2007.10.21 12:39:00 - [21] Ok, you wanted a constructive response - you're getting one. WHAT THE ARE YOU THINKING?! ARE YOU ON *?! THIS IS WORSE THAN THE SODDING MINERAL COMPRESSION NERF!!!! Fighter delegation is all well and good in theory, and is actually something i quite like as it nerfs lowsec solo moms. However, in a real fleet situation, this is impossible. Lag is the prime factor in this. Navigating gang menus and spamming up gang communication channels for fighter requests contribute too. It just isn't viable. As for the drone limitations? I refer you to my above bolded comments. This makes carriers utterly USELESS. Like, why the ** would you bring a carrier to a frontline situation? Carriers and motherships are now dominixes. Nothing more. In fact, here's a snipped from a carrier and a mothership pilot upon hearing about the change: Quote: (@El-Diablito) I've wasted months of training @El-Diablito) for a ship I now have NO desire to fly (@El-Diablito) mother*** ***s (@El-Diablito) five drones (@El-Diablito) i'll have less dps than a megathron Quote: (13:32:19) (@Rodent) El-Diablito cry more **, I have 60b invested in a *** dominix :\| Your entire logic in this is flawed; you spend MONTHS moving carriers away from POS-hugging fighter spammers, trying to edge them more towards frontline logistical support and now you nerf EVERYTHING about them. They're now ridiculously vulnerable to interdictors, and have absolutely no effective offensive capability. Now: Here's the key thing. You have just made the only statement that has EVER united both sides of this war. Everyone is **ed, and everyone WILL despise whichever asshat came up with this change if it comes onto TQ. Have a tip, free from me, abandon it now. Say you had technical difficulties or something, like you did with the cloaking change (which is coming when, btw?). Or better yet, just remove the eejit of a dev who came up with this back to whichever cupboard he came from.
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong Namtz'aar k'in	Posted - 2007.10.21 12:40:00 - [22] 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? ----------------------------------- I'm working my way through college target CCP need...more room...
Kaar Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2007.10.21 12:44:00 - [23] What a total joke. Do fighters even get their damage bonus when assigned? --- ---
Mifter Hogdido Amarr The 0ri Origin Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.21 12:45:00 - [24] This is a terrible idea. Someone fire that guy. ----------------- Its "the" by the way, not whatever the made up use of letters "teh" means.
MuffinsRevenger EmpiresMod Koroshiya Buntai	Posted - 2007.10.21 12:46:00 - [25] Basicly the idea is to make sure that carriers stay far far away from the fighting, preferebly just outside POS's delegating fighters, right? 'cause it soudns familiar somhowe
Pharuan Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2007.10.21 12:56:00 - [26] Here is my question. Lets say that you do put this change out. You delegate 5 fighters to a support ship. You have 5 fighters under your own control. Then your support ship gets destroyed. Will it's delegated fighters automatically return to your fighter bay? Will they just sit in space? What do you have planned for this?
Mitchman Omniscient Order Cruel Intentions	Posted - 2007.10.21 13:03:00 - [27] Nerf something else if you need to fill your quota. New video: Pride, Honor & Retribution
Dezorijented 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.10.21 13:09:00 - [28] Yea its all nice and easy , how in hell we are supposed to control now droens in such a lag ? fix lag maybe then fix evrything else !!! I cant start 1 module in lag and you want us to assigne fighters and deploy over and over ? Oh yea , nice idea!! Ah yea i forgot , there is no lag , its a game feature ! Like desync , feature also !
Have some	Posted - 2007.10.21 13:22:00 - [29] Might as well change the name from carrier to Heavy logistics also, Will post something constructive later.
Spoon Thumb Paladin Imperium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.21 13:31:00 - [30] Edited by: Spoon Thumb on 21/10/2007 13:32:58 Originally by: Crohnx Originally by: zulu dev blog oh and can u erase like 60mil of my skillpoints while ure at it so those 1 week old players can stop whining and play with people that are in here 3+ years , really wtf 1 Please don't quote an entire dev blog, then say absolutely nothing about said devblog 2 Why don't you justify your opinions. Just saying "i don't like it, don't do it" isn't really anything worth posting about. Khaldari

Ruato Gallente Gurgleblaster Industries	Posted - 2007.10.21 13:34:00 - [31] Originally by: Tempelier Edited by: Tempelier on 21/10/2007 12:13:50 Why not work on your "core system" first! to finally let you play in fleet fights and not staring at your monitor for about 15 mins.. Nerving everything is not helping your main problem.. so I petition! Maybe they are. Atleast somewhat. Carrier/mom blobs cause insane amounts of lag. And if this change reduces the efficiency of that blob, lag might get better. (you no longer can field capital only blob to be effective -> more people in smaller ships -> less fighters around -> less lag.) --- *Get rid of those bleeping secure containers. bleep!*
Tempest Kane Amarr Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.10.21 13:36:00 - [32] 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.
Adoro Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.10.21 13:37:00 - [33] Originally by: SpaceTrucker 3000 I love this idea. The whiners crying in this thread are mostly cap-blobbers: they jump carriers and motherships en masse and lock down systems with so much lag that it's impossible to do anything. There are so many fighter drones that only another blob of caps can counter them, since battleships and command ships melt in miliseconds. However being able to deploy unlimited fighters and drones isn't that a good idea. While carriers usually have 17-18 fighters, they can bring virtually an unlimited amount of regular drones. A single carrier could provide enough heavy drones for a whole fleet, and that wouldn't help lag very much. Maybe this could be controlled with the bandwidth thing, and allow like 15 fighters and a few extra smaller drones. With this change at least a fleet would have to be more compensated. Instead of bringing 40 carriers and just raze everything without any kind of risk, you'd have to bring 20 or 30 smaller ships to control the drones. Finally support ships would have something to shoot at (each other), instead of just being meat shields waiting to be melted. You ever actually flown a carrier or seen one? 1. BS and CS dont melt in miliseconds 2. Good luck deploying 18 fighters from a carrier in its current state... 3. "A single carrier could provide enough heavy drones for a whole fleet, and that wouldn't help lag very much." Uhm what? -------- Originally by: Lavinrac Krad You're either one of us or a Minmatar! What about Amarr? Bah, ha ha ha ha, Amarr, lol...
Spoon Thumb Paladin Imperium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.21 13:39:00 - [34] I think this nerf is fine, can't see any problem with it personally. In a different game, you wouldn't have this problem as there might be a system whereby to field 1 mothership you need 10 - 15 support ships or it won't have enough crew or fuel or somesuch. This nerf isn't really against carriers/Mo-ships as such, but against blobbing carriers Khaldari
Three0fNine FinFleet Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.10.21 13:41:00 - [35] Edited by: Three0fNine on 21/10/2007 13:41:02 Originally by: Ruato Carrier/mom blobs cause insane amounts of lag And the solution is to nerv them, that noone uses them anymore?? when you right arm is itching you can cut off the arm of course. It won¦t itch anymore...
ZelRox Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.10.21 13:43:00 - [36] 2 years ago or so you removed the ability to control 10 drones, and gave us 5 drones + damage. The carriers and mother ships were the ultimate drone control ships and have the ability to control 10+ drones, with a single damage bonus. This will not reduce the amount of drones, it will just complicate the usage. And with the lag we are experiencing in any kind of fleet battle, this idea is useless. Bury it somewhere deep and forget about it. Find yourself another project to work on. ---------------------- BiH 4tw
Ruato Gallente Gurgleblaster Industries	Posted - 2007.10.21 13:48:00 - [37] Originally by: Three0fNine And the solution is to nerv them, that noone uses them anymore?? when you right arm is itching you can cut off the arm of course. It won¦t itch anymore... Thats overreacting.. This would not nerf carriers so that nobody would use them anymore. You just would need support which you use to delegate your fighters. So pure carrier blob is no longer an option. Which obviously is a damn good change. If they do nothing, eventually you have only 2 choices if you want to participate in fleet fight: 1) Train into capital ships, or 2) train into dictors so you can stop capital ships. (because every other ship type will be useless in fleet fights) --- *Get rid of those bleeping secure containers. bleep!*
Elmicker Black Sea Industries Cult of War	Posted - 2007.10.21 13:52:00 - [38] Originally by: Ruato Thats overreacting.. This would not nerf carriers so that nobody would use them anymore Yes it would. Assignment is impractical due to lag and coordination problems, and abandons the damage bonus from the "fighters" skill (effectively halving the number of fighters). All this leaves you are your remote rep capabilities, which are all but useless in sub-capital fights as it takes too long to lock the primary target. Everything your carrier does, a dominix or logistics ship now does better.
DarkXeRoX Biohazzard Task Force Mass Destruction.	Posted - 2007.10.21 13:58:00 - [39] Eve is realy going down hill then, ccp releases stuff and it looks all cool and all that so ppl train up then a bit later on they nerf it and the time u trained for em is wasted. Carriers do cost quite a lot more as battleships so do motherships. Their not solo pwnmobiles ( cept moms in low sec however still they die out there ). So why cant a mothership 20-30 billion with ppl spending another couple billion on gear not whipe a battleship out ? Its a far bigger ship and far more sp and isk spend on it, i mean a ship that cost 30times more as a battleship should be able to take out a battleship on its own very easely not ? Super capitals arent Super anymore already with the dictor bubbles being able to stop em from jumping and all that stuff. Carriers well they arnt that hard to take out either. BTF is Recruiting!
Mifter Hogdido Amarr The 0ri Origin Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.21 13:59:00 - [40] Originally by: SpaceTrucker 3000 I love this idea. The whiners crying in this thread are mostly cap-blobbers: they jump carriers and motherships en masse and lock down systems with so much lag that it's impossible to do anything. That's strange since I firmly oppose this nerfing idea and I cant even fly a carrier yet. You just got owned. ----------------- Its "the" by the way, not whatever the made up use of letters "teh" means.

Ruato Gallente Gurgleblaster Industries	Posted - 2007.10.21 14:03:00 - [41] Originally by: Elmicker Originally by: Ruato Thats overreacting.. This would not nerf carriers so that nobody would use them anymore Yes it would. Assignment is impractical due to lag and coordination problems, and abandons the damage bonus from the "fighters" skill (effectively halving the number of fighters). All this leaves you are your remote rep capabilities, which are all but useless in sub-capital fights as it takes too long to lock the primary target. Everything your carrier does, a dominix or logistics ship now does better. Well, let me ask you this: Huge carrier blobs is the right way for this game to go? Because if they do nothing and let current situation go on, eventually normal (sub-capital) ships just dont have place in fleets anymore. --- *Get rid of those bleeping secure containers. bleep!*
Nomispanco Minmatar	Posted - 2007.10.21 14:10:00 - [42] /Signed , Stupid Nerf -- Nomispanco --
Black Jumper Altera Odyssea Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2007.10.21 14:16:00 - [43] Edited by: Black Jumper on 21/10/2007 14:16:29 Originally by: Crohnx oh and can u erase like 60mil of my skillpoints while ure at it so those 1 week old players can stop whining and play with people that are in here 3+ years , really wtf Can i have your stuff ? Sorry mate, I just so wanted to do that, couldn't resist, really.
XXJackXX	Posted - 2007.10.21 14:20:00 - [44] Training lots of skill getting all skills maxed then CCP hey it is overpowered we are nerfing it.This is kinda boring.Capitals and supercapitals.They are support but for capitals and in a capital battle if you cant launch all figthers you need your supports in grid(Capitals and fighters making enough lag) and getting in supports to control those fighters to launch on same target will make it hard.And they are capital they are suppose to kill a bs.I'm killing bs in 3 shots with my moros so you gonna nerf dreads too?. If you want to carriers nber nerf fighter damage not the control able drones or if you are limiting the drone count in same time give more damage bonus for carriers.
Uber Amos Gallente Mean Corp The Church.	Posted - 2007.10.21 14:20:00 - [45] ... Let's add capital ships to the game! They can be tougher than battleships and we can have carriers that can launch lots of fighters, and motherships that can control more, titans that can atack an area remotly, and dreadnoughts for ... killing POS's... Then let's nerf them so no-one uses them! Hurrah! Yeah, I don't think it's a good idea... a carrier is a BIG risk on the front line, a mothership is vulnerable to far less... but is worth far more. Yeah fighters aren't difficult to kill.. and motherships/carriers can only carry so many.. So rather than kill motherships, kill their fighters :P But I think this is an unnessesary nerf, that serves no purpose... The people who only use them to assign fighters, makes no difference, the people who use their carriers/motherships on the front line... wont... so they will be harder to track down and kill... and the people who try to kill them will have less drones to kill.. and there are no drone bonuses.. wow... I think this is a Nerf Too Far (and I DON'T fly capital ships before people ask :P) --- Imgaine the Duck, the Caldari Electronic Warfare Command Ship... "OMG A DUCK! PRIMARY IS THE DUCK!!! Quick before it JAMS us!"
iiOs	Posted - 2007.10.21 14:20:00 - [46] good change
Trass Caldari DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.10.21 14:26:00 - [47] Originally by: Ruato Carrier/mom blobs cause insane amounts of lag. And if this change reduces the efficiency of that blob, lag might get better. We have lags so we nerfing caps? Normaly when healthy company have big problems with their products, they dismiss existing programers and employ new, wisest guys (no offence). When CCP have problem with their product, they punish players, make them suffer
Hunlight Faithus Ravenclaw Manufacturing DeStInY.	Posted - 2007.10.21 14:26:00 - [48] can undertand carriers are support but come on we need to do some dmg hell our supprot fleet killed wtf we have 5 fighters great NOT come on ccp be realistic, yes carriers r support, but also think of it as extra laod on server i send command to mine that 1 command i give my gagn mates my fighter now 3 commands r sent, please ccp carriers r meant for fighters etc let us control our own damn fighters please this is one major chnage that is for the worst.
Alyxa Mahan	Posted - 2007.10.21 14:35:00 - [49] Originally by: Trass Normaly when healthy company have big problems with their products, they dismiss existing programers and employ new, wisest guys (no offence). When CCP have problem with their product, they punish players, make them suffer Lemme guess, EVE is your first MMO?
Aurore Black	Posted - 2007.10.21 14:35:00 - [50] Hey CCp, wake up... if i put some B isk in my carrier it's not to make the dps of a battlecruiser... carrier is a big drone bay. how can a carrier defend if he can just control 5 drones ? with 10 it's already hard so with 5... This idea is ridiculous.../signed, stupid nerf

ITTigerClawIK Amarr PIE Inc.	Posted - 2007.10.21 14:45:00 - [51] im Sorry i waited 2 years for a carrier most of the time waiting for a carrier to come out and then all the hard work and skill training to get into one and now you just killed it.... the reason BS's get taken out so quickly is couse they concentrate on the carrier and not killing the fighters.. if you kill the fighters then there is no problems... maybe Zulupark needs to learn how to fly a BS properly himself Sig space reclaimed in the name of me -courtesy of Tiggy ([email protected])
Benn Helmsman Caldari Dark Prophecy Inc.	Posted - 2007.10.21 15:08:00 - [52] Edited by: Benn Helmsman on 21/10/2007 15:08:14 I see the change as a good one, because there will be more and more carriers on the field, rendering most any other ship useless while you have ultimate lagbombs. 300 Carrier = 4500 Fighter... They reacted soon enough, i am proud of CCP (this time).
Trass Caldari DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.10.21 15:13:00 - [53] Edited by: Trass on 21/10/2007 15:15:25 Originally by: Alyxa Mahan EVE is your first MMO? You know any other so big MMORPG (no MMO) and company that theoretically have potential to make games like quake4 or battlefield 3? No? So STFU.
Elmicker Black Sea Industries Cult of War	Posted - 2007.10.21 15:17:00 - [54] Originally by: Ruato Because if they do nothing and let current situation go on, eventually normal (sub-capital) ships just dont have place in fleets anymore. What bull****. The full scale capital blob has probably happened a half a dozen times, if that. The vast, vast, vast majority of PvP is still done in battleships and below. Carriers and capitals still need support fleets, and always will. Yes, fighter and drone mechanics need tweaking, but this is totally the wrong way to go about it.
Benn Helmsman Caldari Dark Prophecy Inc.	Posted - 2007.10.21 15:29:00 - [55] Originally by: Elmicker Originally by: Ruato Because if they do nothing and let current situation go on, eventually normal (sub-capital) ships just dont have place in fleets anymore. What bull****. The full scale capital blob has probably happened a half a dozen times, if that. The vast, vast, vast majority of PvP is still done in battleships and below. Carriers and capitals still need support fleets, and always will. Yes, fighter and drone mechanics need tweaking, but this is totally the wrong way to go about it. Yet... wait a year and it will become very very common.
Xaarist FinFleet Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.10.21 15:36:00 - [56] one thing is certain after reading up to this point. some people still talk about things they have no clue about. the two favoured myths from my perspective: 1st myth: carrier only blobs: i have never ever seen a carrier only blob. the most carriers in gang i have seen was around 50, with the gang being at least twice the size, probably even more. do they create more lag than other ships? what if the 100 BS blob deploys drones, ain't that the same? there have been incidents where fights involving a lot of carriers were laggy, this is true. but in the end the carriers were not alone, it was the 500 other people in system which caused this major lag. i think most people refer to the 0oy fight when talking about "the carrier blob lag", it is a perfect example. some ppl spotted 50 carriers and it is easy to blame lag on them. ask yourselves. would that fight have had less lag if it was 25 carriers less and instead of them 25 intys? i say: NOT AT ALL. 2nd myth: the prospected changes will in any way help to lessen lag: the opposite will be the case, delegation, management, will add to the lag, and more people will be unable to do anything. example: a fighter controlled by a carrier kills something: carrier gets a mail. a fighter delegated to someone kill something: carrier pilot and controlling pilot get the mail. more people will be involved and they will be involved. also, if more people have drones assigned, more people will warp around with them, deployed fighters protect their target if it gets agressed, all calculations are done twice, since the carrier pilot himself still has contact to his drones (recall command, damage bars, calculation where the drones are (distant, local space) and what they are doing (following, fighting, ..)). it won't help lag a single bit. and after all, CCP did never say in the blog they do that because of the lag. i think they do it, because the other explanation given are just stupid and untrue, so there has got to be something else behind the thoughts. but i wanted to state that they did not say it has anything to do with lag. ---------------- Your signature image exceeds the maximum allowed filesize of 24000 bytes -Sahwoolo Etoophie
Icome4u Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L	Posted - 2007.10.21 15:40:00 - [57] 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! ______ Originally by: Vyger If I lose connection while walking around a station will my avatar run off in a random direction and go hide in a corner?
Benn Helmsman Caldari Dark Prophecy Inc.	Posted - 2007.10.21 15:44:00 - [58] Edited by: Benn Helmsman on 21/10/2007 15:44:46 Originally by: Xaarist one thing is certain after reading up to this point. some people still talk about things they have no clue about. the two favoured myths from my perspective: 1st myth: carrier only blobs: i have never ever seen a carrier only blob. the most carriers in gang i have seen was around 50, with the gang being at least twice the size, probably even more. do they create more lag than other ships? what if the 100 BS blob deploys drones, ain't that the same? there have been incidents where fights involving a lot of carriers were laggy, this is true. but in the end the carriers were not alone, it was the 500 other people in system which caused this major lag. i think most people refer to the 0oy fight when talking about "the carrier blob lag", it is a perfect example. some ppl spotted 50 carriers and it is easy to blame lag on them. ask yourselves. would that fight have had less lag if it was 25 carriers less and instead of them 25 intys? i say: NOT AT ALL. 2nd myth: the prospected changes will in any way help to lessen lag: the opposite will be the case, delegation, management, will add to the lag, and more people will be unable to do anything. example: a fighter controlled by a carrier kills something: carrier gets a mail. a fighter delegated to someone kill something: carrier pilot and controlling pilot get the mail. more people will be involved and they will be involved. also, if more people have drones assigned, more people will warp around with them, deployed fighters protect their target if it gets agressed, all calculations are done twice, since the carrier pilot himself still has contact to his drones (recall command, damage bars, calculation where the drones are (distant, local space) and what they are doing (following, fighting, ..)). it won't help lag a single bit. and after all, CCP did never say in the blog they do that because of the lag. i think they do it, because the other explanation given are just stupid and untrue, so there has got to be something else behind the thoughts. but i wanted to state that they did not say it has anything to do with lag. 1) Carrier blobs arent uberly common now, but they would become very very popular without this change. 2) The change reduce the drones/fighter on battlefield dramatically. Because other ships cant use their own drones and you cant field an unlimited number of carriers.
Arenis Xemdal Amarr	Posted - 2007.10.21 15:44:00 - [59] The word that comes to mind when describing their solution is "uninspired". Its like they're not even trying and going for the most direct solution without considering other things.
Noa Fuyu Amarr Wings of Redemption Black Flag Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.21 15:57:00 - [60] Dont fix things that arent broken. I would throw a hundred ships into the void just to see you crushed.

Malaan Tabfassh Penguin Mining Operations and More	Posted - 2007.10.21 15:58:00 - [61] Well, I don't fly a carrier till now. But I thought about it, cause I think this is a very versatile shipclass till now and can help a small corp much when settling down in a lowsec area. When such a nerf comes, it won't be more than a Tech III logistic cruiser. Damn this is a capship, it will cost over 1bil for me when buying it (much for me). It shouldn't be a wtfpwnmobile, but not a logistic cruiser with only a jumpdrive either.
NaRoaN	Posted - 2007.10.21 16:02:00 - [62] Look if this becomes a reality then I'm telling you right now i quit you guys always make a ship or mod, then nerf it... So I as many other do spend tons of our time training it, and then its useless.. Is this a ploy to keep us shelling Bucks your way MOthership. Why should a 30 billion + dollar ship reck havoc on a battlefield? If you nerf the carrier then i want all the isk and skillpoints reimbursed!!!! because it will be useless. as it pretty much already is anyways Whoever thought of this idea at eve should be FIRED!!! BLOWN UP AND PODDED
Blind Man Angel Deep Corporation	Posted - 2007.10.21 16:05:00 - [63] nothing but good stuff there.. I knew why I didnt train for capital ships hahahahaha :)
gordon cain Minmatar x13	Posted - 2007.10.21 16:06:00 - [64] I was told to go check the forums for an incomming mom/carrier nerf. And I find this. I hope you are really considering what this will do to cap warfare. - This will destroy corps with less than 20 active members with a good capital turnout. - This will cause blob-warfare to explode and begin a new time of shuttle/rifter fighter bombing. - Why are CCP even considering nerfing moms/carriers when they cant even figure out how to solve the desync proplem. Oh well, I can always go play "pirates" when that is out and come back when they fixed it again. Gordon Cain "Allways remember. Never argue with idiots, they will just drag you down to their level, and beat you with experience"
Young Buck Contraband Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.10.21 16:12:00 - [65] To be honest CCP i think this nerf is complete -blam!-. With that said my reasoning is this; i have spent countless months and invested extreme amounts of isk to make my carrier dream come true and now that i have gotten to that place you wanna take it all away. These ships are CAPITAL SHIPS... they are huge, it only makes sense that a ship of this class should be allowed to hold its own if need be. But you are making it so it wont even be able to defend itself if i don't have a gang there to assign fighters to. Me being able to directly control 5 fighters on my own without anyone else there is just -blam!-. We are talking about carriers and motherships here who by all rights should be able to control vast amounts of fighters on their own. CCP, your player base has invested too much in these capitals for you to ruin them in this fashion. Rethink this idea so I'm not stuck with a really expensive piece of junk please.
Venec Rave Technologies Inc. C0VEN	Posted - 2007.10.21 16:25:00 - [66] TBH, I would expect in this thread more mocking goonalts.
TooGay4you	Posted - 2007.10.21 16:25:00 - [67] Is that a bob thread ?
Venec Rave Technologies Inc. C0VEN	Posted - 2007.10.21 16:27:00 - [68] Originally by: Too*4you Is that a bob thread ? Aaa... much better.
stummer	Posted - 2007.10.21 16:32:00 - [69] Seems to be a badly thought out answer for a question that is poor to start with, It will make a carrier into a well tanked domi, oh wait without a drone bonus, and a 1.2 billion isk ship should really have an advantage over a 100 mill isk ship, carrier are far from a solo pawn machine, Fighter them self are very vunrable to be wiped out straight away in any fight and at 15 mill a pop it hardly cheap to loose a wave of ten, the dps isnt that sodding amazing any way rating it up there with gank fitted BS, not gaming breaking in any way, MOMs will put out seriously more dps but for a 50 bill ship it does seem unfair for them to have a advantage, if this is implemented where do i write to get my isk back for the carrier skill book again?
Alyxa Mahan	Posted - 2007.10.21 16:32:00 - [70] Originally by: Trass You know any other so big MMORPG (not MMO) and company that theoretically have potential to make games like quake4 or battlefield 3? (but are to lazy to fix this game, and instead of it they killing their product). No? So STFU. q.e.d. Seriously, that made even less sense than your previous post. As far as the MMORPG market goes, CCP and EVE is a dwarf, and a small one, and the only reason EVE has as many subscribers as it has is that there's simply zero competition in its niche. Simple brainstorming about little changes like this one resulting in some form of DOOOOM! outcry is the norm in every single game on the market. Its blatantly obvious CCP constantly stumbles into situations they didn't expect when giving the players new toys, another common standard in that industry btw. Ask them what problem they see, and then talk it through, don't go all insane, screaming to fire CCP staff to keep your latest greatest toy.

Xaldor	Posted - 2007.10.21 16:36:00 - [71] I think it is silly to have a capital ships that are effectively outgunned by a battleship. I think it is silly to assign 5 fighter to a pilot that has no drone skills. I think it is silly to assign 5 fighters to a ship where the fighters are probably worth more than that other player's ship. It just makes no sense... none at all. The problem is not that Carriers are able to launch lots of fighters, that is what carriers are meant to do. The problem is you do not want fleets of carriers without support ships. You do not want Carriers as front-line siege breakers. Why are they being used in those roles? Because they have no reall effective predator. Thanks to the comical Dreadnoughts and Titan designs, people only deploy them for support roles or comedy value. My suggestion is to overhaul Dreadnoughts, they are sadly lacking in terms of effectiveness, which is probably why they are not all that popular. Give them an overhaul, make a new line of Dreads that are capital ship hunters, floating glass cannons, make them antt-Carrier and capital ship hunters of the battlefield. The damage output of a Dread is rather pathetic, give them massive capital ships damage dealing potential with non-existant smaller ship damage, with a luke warm tank making them utterly dependant on fleet to stay alive with only one purpose, protect a fleet operation from enemy capitals. They should be rather economical because they wont have the life expectancy of other capitals or have a lot of versatile roles they can perform. They are just good at engaging enemy capital ships. But, if a Cap hunter gets within range of a Carrier, it should absolutely sodomize the Carrier. Because there is no natural predator to the Carrier, they are being used with their massive tanking potential to be frontline siege breakers. Put in a predator into the mix and you will change the way people will deploy and use their carriers without introducing lame carrier limitations. You just have to understand WHY people are using carriers as they are. My second suggestion is introduce mine deployment, floating mines which you can launch with a minelaying module which target capital ships that get within their effective range. They should do ridiculous damage to capital sized ships that get close to them and forces the capital ships to rely on smaller support craft to perform mineclearing duties. Just make it so you need a module to be able to detect and target mines, as they would have built in sensor dampeners which are too advanced for drones to detect and engage. Mines should also have an effective range significantly greater than any smartbomb type device. It opens up a whole new type of engagement possibilities with fleets luring enemy capitals into traps, using mines also as a means of defence against capitals. Capitals just need more predators and people will use them in a more realistic manner.
General StarScream THE DECEPTIC0NS	Posted - 2007.10.21 16:45:00 - [72] I think this is nice ide, the carrier blob is a problem, and needs to be solved. a Battlship could do more raw Dam than a carrier.
Coolgamer Minmatar Res Publica R i s e	Posted - 2007.10.21 16:54:00 - [73] Edited by: Coolgamer on 21/10/2007 16:54:17 Carrier blob looool man seriously play EvE more often anyway and one more silly idea that is not one but just something to proove "someone is working somewhere" no it's not an idea, it's a nerf, it's a fun spoiler, it's bad forget this idea, and if you need far better suggestions picked from others, read my post there : http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=618279&page=19
oniplE NED-Clan R i s e	Posted - 2007.10.21 16:55:00 - [74] What a horrible, horrible idea. Quite possibly the worst idea of CCP yet.
Lilan Kahn Amarr The Littlest Hobos Insurgency	Posted - 2007.10.21 17:02:00 - [75] Can you stupid arses figure out wtf you whant carriers for? first you nerfed the fighter bombing thing, and you whanted peopel to front line there carriers for max ownage (that is fun not sitting at a pos) a well geared carrier atm got round abut 1200 dps with a decent tank. So now you whant to change it to 5 fighters a time? A thorax is gonna have more dps than a carrier wtf is up with that? Dont do this changeing abut willy nilly make up your ******* mind and stick to it.
Dogfighter	Posted - 2007.10.21 17:08:00 - [76] Don't you have anything else to balance or to implement? Oh come on! Sincerely, such nerf is a really BAD IDEA. Nerfs usually don't improve EVE, in this case this is just waste of time. Many players would benefit of other ideas that state on the forums for months than just another nerf. What ideas? Here are many, I think all players find at least one or two of these attractive: - Implement a functional share system! Why should I buy shares from a corporation if I have absolutely NO warranty that it won't be another scam? - What is a space simulation game without a decent bounty system? It is EVE It simply doesn't work right. - Create some larger and better tech 2 haulers that can fight back with guns, like in the movies! An intermediate ship between common haulers and huge freighters. - Years ago we could find nice systems to mine virtually everywhere in high-sec. Oh good noob times! Now you can't find a single kernite asteroid there. And why always kernite? - 0.5 systems are too secure and 0.4 too unsecure; a softer transition would be great for new players that like risks! - A.I. is TOO WEAK. Rats don't scramble, web or EW much, nor change their targets like human players. They don't really camp gates like humans. - Offline POSs should not regenerate their shields. Are they offline or not!?! - It was a deception the first time I saw a POS. It is a strange disconnected collection of junk to me. Cable, pipe and connection structures with range limitation would be nice! Platforms, and bigger model structures too! Where are the animations and special effects? Industrial structures could also anchor and come online in LESS time! - You have several new players coming online in the next few months. Do you think they are satisfied with the actual tech 1 ships they can pilot, and the long time they have to train just to pilot a better ship so they don't get always killed as soon as they put their head inside a low-sec system with something bigger than a frigate? - Some crazy ppl love to haul stuff. And you don't seem to be interested in implementing a NPC transport system. Nowadays, courier missions are crap. What about a courier mission system where Interbus intermediates the process wrapping the cargo to avoid exploits and huge collaterals? The mission creator would be hidden on the contract. If a transporter looses the wrapped cargo, the mission would be available again. If the mission time ends, the mission creator looses the ISK used to create the mission but receives the cargo back. Player Owned Station could have a special trade office upgrade to allow Interbus agents work on their stations! - Moon mining is becoming a problem. After invention, moon material prices became too high. You can't find any free promethium or dysprosium moons anywhere in 0.0 space. A tech 2 moon harvesting array with VERY HIGH CPU AND POWERGRID costs would help and make the POS weaker . - It is still a pain in the @@@ haul moon materials to high sec. A tech 2 freighter that jumps as far as a dread would be great! With rigs and fitting slots please! People use dreads for this purpose!!! Rorqual is CRAP: it doesn't transport compressed moon material, and have too many separated compartments (hangar, cargo bay, haulers inside it). - POSs could have a new industrial structure to produce tech 2 ship components with greater efficiency and speed than stations. - What about customizable textures on my ships?! That would be nice! Start with simple logos, then bigger textures or color modifications. Customizable model parts would be the perfection fr a game like EVE. I would like to pilot ships I have designed and show them to my friends, even if a custom original blueprint would cost billions of ISK on TQ server. They could be created using another ship's attributes, without modifications. - Some ship models are really ugly. Create a voting system, so players can decide the best models!
L Cross	Posted - 2007.10.21 17:15:00 - [77] OMFG! OK so we are now turning Carriers into Battleship with alot of shield and no turrets. This means we are only a freaking logistic ship. Why not make Logistics 5 a pre - requisite for carrier now. And how about we make up 2 more skills one for drones one for ships Drone skill: Drone Stupidity Rank (18) Attributes: Waste your time training this skill as a prerequisite to a new and worthless skill: advanced drone interfacing. Waste your entire life in fact and kill yourself to find out that the 120 days required for carrier 5, advanced drone interface 5, and fighters 5 just got turned into dog **! Yay we are CCP hear us fart and queef into the night! Next skill: Super Stupid DEADVANCEMENT Spaceship command Rank(200) Attributes: Want to use a carrier? ZOMGZ You are a stupid dumby. So to prove how stupid you are, we are going to make you train this 200 RANK skill as a pre requisite to carrier! wootz! Go kill yourself! way to go and kill carriers CCP can we please rename carriers and moms "POS Healers" so they have an accurate description of the name. HONESTLY, NOT EVERYONE WHO OWNS A CARRIER PARTICIPATES IN HUGE WARS BECAUSE WE DONT ALL HAVE SUPER ALIEN WARE COMPUTERS!!!! Instead of coming up with stupidity (who let this guy transfer out of the mail room?????!!! WTF) How about we fix lag! How about we fix bugs! How about we prevent cornering of NPC market by isk farmers 2 seconds before downtime by making the npc market reset at random intervals. How about we FIX EVE BEFORE WE DECIDE TO SCREW IT UP FOR EVERYONE! and for complaining individuals who think this is great idea. Get out of your battleship. Get into a capital ship which cost billions and billions train the skills which take upto a year or more and then put the same face on. Holy dog batman. How could we come up with a worse idea!!! I'm apalled. Just when I thought CCP was doing a good job they come up with a good ole "idea" to all the customers. In eve you fly spaceships. You start small and you get bigger. This has been said before but its like training yourself to be SLOWER since each ship is slower and slower (excludeabond please) Now we got carriers dreads and titans which are zomg slow. Now lets make a carrier- no turrets no hardpoints. make it stupidly expensive. Turn it into a paperweight. This is as bad as a dictor killing a titan. hey lets do isk counting here 30m dictor = trillion isk titan wootz! BALANCE IS THIS GUYS SUPER SPECIALTY!! YAY!! /me goes back to TECH 1 FRIGATE maybe if I get lucky you wont those right? because if BS > carrier then next nerf is cruiser > BS next one of course is frig > cruiser velator for the win ***s! I can't believe this upcoming nerf: BS gets 2 hardpoints and reduction of power grid by 95% upcoming nerf ALL SHIPS: velocity reduced 95% ALL SHIPS: Warp speed reduced to a cap of .125au/sec how about we do exactly what other game companies love to do: make a game nerf it so bad that everyone hates it sit with your thumbs up your ass and wonder why you dont make money with subscriptions anymore. and finally: reminisce about the "good old days" before you **ed the whole game up way to go 0/10 and kill yourself
Isanoe nothwood Amarr Kernel of War Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2007.10.21 17:30:00 - [78] Sometimes CCP does good things, and sometime we wonder where do you find thoses stupid ideas ? totaly against.
madaluap Gallente Mercenary Forces Exquisite Malevolence	Posted - 2007.10.21 17:32:00 - [79] Oh ** off BOB. This is no big nerf at all, this is just *** awesome. I AM DISGUSTED when i see 2 BS flying around, you get a gang together and the cyno lights up and the carriers drop in. Mind you, we have our own capitals, but its just *** ghey. Its stupid when people try to pirate in faction ships (which they enjoy) and the damn thing gets killed after 2 days in lowsec. Why? Because a mothership and carrier are used to act as SOLO PWNING mobiles, which are near IMPOSSIBLE to stop. Why is it impossible? Because they drop in, deal 2500 DPS (MS) while being invulnerable for EW and than cyno out 1 minute lateron. Where does the rescue gang step in? What the real problem is for BOB is that with carriers you could take on HUGE odds vs BS(sniper)gangs, just make a circle tank and pick a target and boom it goes. Players should be stopped in doing this, OMG BOOHOO i paid 1.2 bil for this carrier and i have platinum insurance and dont lose jack-** compared to what i am capable off. Im loving this plans and i own a carrier and dreadnaught. What i can do is simply assign these drones to the people around me. For a carrier it isnt THAT hard: Launch 5 assign, launch 5 keep those for yourself. Thats it, if you have so much problems with that, you are using your carrier wrong. Carriers are heavy duty support ships for helping other people in the fleet/gang out, just like dreadnaughts are specialised tools to make POS killing faster. You are just using your carriers for the wrong thing. _________________________________________________ Breetime A killmail!11!1 omgrawr: BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
ElCoCo KIA Corp KIA Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.21 17:36:00 - [80] I don't see a problem that needs changing zulupark. The risk involved to using capships (yeah besides lowsec MS use) greatly outweighs their benefit.

ElCoCo KIA Corp KIA Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.21 17:39:00 - [81] Oh on second thought, I see a problem... your inability to implement dynamic load balancing even if you see that it's the only way forward In a couple of years, instead of fighters the carriers will have single "battleship pets" in your half arsed efforts to decrease lag.
Wodanonline Pringles Inc. STYX.	Posted - 2007.10.21 17:41:00 - [82] i guess they just put a new guy on the worst place he could be in. see how ppl would react and blame it all on him if it goas bad. well you obviously notice this change will not be apreciated i hope you act to the opinion of your paying customers. and to put it more precise to your long term paying customers as they are affected most.
Valandril Caldari Resurrection R i s e	Posted - 2007.10.21 17:48:00 - [83] My account expire in 1 month, if this change kicks in, i'm not buying another, nor for my main nor for my alts. Why ? Because this move carriers even MORE right-outside-pos-shield instead going right into battle which is just plain stupid and **** up, let me play with my carrier, not hug pos forcefield with it. Seriously whats the point now to field carriers other than make repair chain of them and keep killing hostile ships (which would go awfully slow with only carriers on your side). Don't even say traige, its pointless, u will cap out before u say "mary christmas", u will be stuck for 10 minutes and 99% of ppl will be outside your remote repping range soon anyway. So ccp, stop listening to whining and start thinking instead, because capitals is where eve should aim (theyr more resistant to lag, theyr tactical, theyr remote repping, and its very hard to instapop them). --- Battlecarriers !**
Keflin Geard The Circle STYX.	Posted - 2007.10.21 17:49:00 - [84] The problem with Moms/carriers is the way there fighters are represented in combat, not with there function. Stop treating fighters as individual entities; have them represented as a single unit with the hit points/damage of the total fighter units assigned to a target. WouldnÆt this greatly reduce the number crunching the game has to do? Moving the goalposts so drastically on ship classes that are now ubiquitous is going to really upset a TON of eve players. MoM pilots especially have skilled for years and paid many billions of isk to acquire and fit there ship, not to mention the raw number of hours invested. And this mod threatens to take all the fun out of flying one. Who the hell wants to sit on a POS and assign fighters in lieu of actually being in a battle?
Fusedbrain Amarr Black Eclipse Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.10.21 17:56:00 - [85] Edited by: Fusedbrain on 21/10/2007 17:57:28 I'm not one to post on these forums. But I have to say that this nerf is just silly. If you happen to run into a carrier with you BS you should realize you could be in trouble. This game is starting to make no sense. I have skilled for my carrier for what I perceive to be a long time and this just might be what breaks this game for me. I'm as of now removing my 5 accounts from automatic billing. Good move CCP keep going and you'll ruin a decent game. I hope you're just having a brain fart. Fusedbrain
Benn Helmsman Caldari Dark Prophecy Inc.	Posted - 2007.10.21 18:00:00 - [86] Edited by: Benn Helmsman on 21/10/2007 18:02:08 Edited by: Benn Helmsman on 21/10/2007 18:00:26 Originally by: Valandril My account expire in 1 month, if this change kicks in, i'm not buying another, nor for my main nor for my alts. Why ? Because this move carriers even MORE right-outside-pos-shield instead going right into battle which is just plain stupid and ****** up, let me play with my carrier, not hug pos forcefield with it. Seriously whats the point now to field carriers other than make repair chain of them and keep killing hostile ships (which would go awfully slow with only carriers on your side). Don't even say traige, its pointless, u will cap out before u say "mary christmas", u will be stuck for 10 minutes and 99% of ppl will be outside your remote repping range soon anyway. So ccp, stop listening to whining and start thinking instead, because capitals is where eve should aim (theyr more resistant to lag, theyr tactical, theyr remote repping, and its very hard to instapop them). May i have your stuff then? I would like to have a carrier, because they will be still awesome. Add: everyone who wants to quit: contract your stuff to me, i will put it to good use!
Armoured C Gallente Deviance Inc DeStInY.	Posted - 2007.10.21 18:05:00 - [87] wow such a dumbass idea notice that most of the people saying it a good idea have probably never been in 0.0 or even in low sec go home carebears
Valandril Caldari Resurrection R i s e	Posted - 2007.10.21 18:10:00 - [88] Originally by: MOS DEF This is no nerf guys. You don't see the bigger picture. This is step one of many utterly stupid changes to drive the playerbase away to finally fix the lag. Word :D:D /me throw beer at mos def --- Battlecarriers !
Dogfighter	Posted - 2007.10.21 18:13:00 - [89] Quote: May i have your stuff then? I would like to have a carrier, because they will be still awesome. Add: everyone who wants to quit: contract your stuff to me, i will put it to good use! Bah, you must be a noob.
Gyle Caldari Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.	Posted - 2007.10.21 18:15:00 - [90] Originally by: SpaceTrucker 3000 I love this idea. The whiners crying in this thread are mostly cap-blobbers: they jump carriers and motherships en masse and lock down systems with so much lag that it's impossible to do anything. There are so many fighter drones that only another blob of caps can counter them, since battleships and command ships melt in miliseconds. However being able to deploy unlimited fighters and drones isn't that a good idea. While carriers usually have 17-18 fighters, they can bring virtually an unlimited amount of regular drones. A single carrier could provide enough heavy drones for a whole fleet, and that wouldn't help lag very much. Maybe this could be controlled with the bandwidth thing, and allow like 15 fighters and a few extra smaller drones. With this change at least a fleet would have to be more compensated. Instead of bringing 40 carriers and just raze everything without any kind of risk, you'd have to bring 20 or 30 smaller ships to control the drones. Finally support ships would have something to shoot at (each other), instead of just being meat shields waiting to be melted. Thats pathetic. you dont understand the game because you dont fly a cap. Lag happens and carriers presence impact minimaly on battles where theres 300 people in system anyway. Your new to the game and therefore want to nurf everyone who has been in the game longer than you. What you fail to understand is the nature and balancing of the game. and you are effectivly nulifying two class of ship and also relegating those players to the sidelines. Yea thats a great idea. BTW guys we are making a change to carriers and moms. yea yea i know you spent a lot of time and money on em. but weve decided "its taking us down a dangerous path" so now we just want you to spend the rest of you life at a pos with your drones assigned let all the other noobs in frigs do the fighting. Ill say again ccp ive played for three and a half years and ill quit instantly if you make this change.

Shogol	Posted - 2007.10.21 18:15:00 - [91] I dont approve this nerf. Flying alone and having MS as mobile station only... quite waste of skill points and boring in the end.
Uncauzi Gallente No Trademark Notoriety Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.21 18:17:00 - [92] I thought the idea was to put Carriers on the frontline back in the day? Just buff Dreads to be able to wtf pwn Carriers imo. Give them more of a frontline use. Add different weapon modules if needed, some for PoS, some for anti-capships.
Dogfighter	Posted - 2007.10.21 18:25:00 - [93] Originally by: MOS DEF This is no nerf guys. You don't see the bigger picture. This is step one of many utterly stupid changes to drive the playerbase away to finally fix the lag. Maybe. Think about this problem: What will CCP do with old players when these players don't have absolutely anything else new to train or to do? And what can CCP do to give new players a chance to get close to the older players' power? One solution would be: reduce the number of old players, nerfing all their particular activities. They already payed EVE for a long time. And let the marketing department attract new players to replace that old ones. As forums posts don't stop to pop here, I think this situation will probably be handled carefully.
judes23 The Silent Rage M. PIRE	Posted - 2007.10.21 18:27:00 - [94] this is unbelieve. only able to control 5 fighters at once. WHAT THE HELL!!?? CCP needs to stop nerfing all the good ships, Carriers are supose to be able to launch tons of fighters...thats why they call them CARRIERS! and supercapitals, like motherships should be almost inkill able, why? there supercapital ships meant to withstand over 20 battleships at any given time. i made an alt, with my own money just to fly the carrier, im about 131 days away, and boom, this is going to be the 5th ship that CCP has nerfed before i got into it. thanks alot CCP for ruining this game even more for the people who have been playing it since the 1st years its came. i still cannot believe that just becuase a few people whine and cry about them losing 100million+ and their pod due to moms and carriers that CCP has to nerf them. Have you guys ever heard of a...scout? i mean, come on quit whining, get into a capital ship and you will understand WHY people are having a really big problem with CCP nerfing every single good thing about a carrier/mothership sorry for this rant, im just way to mad that CCP is nerfing another ship just because carebears are crying on the forums.
Oolm	Posted - 2007.10.21 18:28:00 - [95] I hope CCP will not do same mistake as StarWar Galaxy developers. They lost almost all playerbase after major nerf of that kind.
Tunajuice Convergent Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.10.21 18:30:00 - [96] Edited by: Tunajuice on 21/10/2007 18:31:34 Thats fine, if I can only control 5 fighters at once, but give all fighters a 50% damage boost. As it stands, 5 fighters at even Thanatos level DPS is utterly pathetic. Here is a clue for devs... Most fleet combat still happens at 150km. Drones and fighters are useless at this range. Why go through 3 hours of assigning carrier fighters, only to have them useless in the fight? If a carrier wants to risk itself to jump on top of a enemy, they should be able to do very decent dps. A dread can do 2-3x carrier dps at another capital, if you make carriers useless at killing capitals, you may as well make dreads useless at killing anything other than POS shields. Also, a Moros now has more DPS than a carrier with ogre II, may want to look at that as well. Logistic module is a joke, soon fighters are a joke, and carriers aren't even the best 0.0 haulers anymore (hello t2 freighter). What role is carrier supposed to fill, and does it really fill it to the level of a 1+ billion isk ship?
Shirei Minmatar Cutting Edge Incorporated	Posted - 2007.10.21 18:32:00 - [97] Edited by: Shirei on 21/10/2007 18:36:11 If this comes in, Carriers/MS would really need to be given a new ability (not necessarily damage) to give them a purpose in front-line combat and allow them to defend themselves against (or at least get away from) small numbers of attackers. What that could be, I don't know, maybe this remote-ECM burst that was announced for MS in a dev blog a few months back or some kind of useful support function that is feasible in larger/laggy battles (e.g. some kind of AoE effect giving bonuses or repairing all gang members within a certain radius of the carrier/MS). Otherwise, they would have no real purpose apart from repairing POS shields and assigning fighters while sitting 0.001m from the POS shields - which in turn would make it fairly pointless to go for a MS instead of a carrier, since they can do the same thing at 1/20 the cost - invulnerability to EW/scrambling is a bit pointless if you are nearly invulnerable sitting at a POS anyway.
Fusedbrain Amarr Black Eclipse Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.10.21 18:35:00 - [98] The more I think about this change in the game the more I dislike it. Gime me a break CCP. You are about to ruin a good game. Come on Star Trek Online. At least it will a good game till they too start nerfing the game. Tick Tock CCP
Night Tripper Es and Whizz	Posted - 2007.10.21 18:55:00 - [99] i can see where they are coming from to be honest. good luck getting that change made though :)
Benn Helmsman Caldari Dark Prophecy Inc.	Posted - 2007.10.21 18:55:00 - [100] Originally by: Fusedbrain Edited by: Fusedbrain on 21/10/2007 18:44:19 Edited by: Fusedbrain on 21/10/2007 18:40:49 The more I think about this change in the game the more I dislike it. Gime me a break. You are about to ruin a good game. Come on Star Trek Online. At least it will a good game till they too start nerfing it. Your time is coming CCP HAHA you sound like these DAoC people who where bitter about game changes and screamed: We will go to WoW!

HoIIy Smoke	Posted - 2007.10.21 18:56:00 - [101] Right, for the last year or so ive worked towards a carrier....slaved towards it...sacrificed other shiny toys on the skill board tree to be able to fly one. Why? Because it is the next step up. It is the next bit of fun after a bship. Take that away and basically you will kill the game through utter frustration for most capital ship pilots. Thats how i see it anyway. Why the hell did i waste my time is what i am thinking right now. Anyone know when pirates of the burning sea comes out...maybe they will have more sensible balancing. (or at least put a little more thought into new content release and more testing to avoid these, shall we say, unpleasantries.)
Norjia Blacksteel Gallente Blacksteel Mining and Manufacturing Apoapsis Multiversal Consortium	Posted - 2007.10.21 18:57:00 - [102] 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? Woa boy... calm down man. It's a game. ---- Norjia Blacksteel CEO Blacksteel Mining and Manufacturing
Gyle Caldari Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.	Posted - 2007.10.21 19:01:00 - [103] Originally by: Norjia Blacksteel 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? Woa boy... calm down man. It's a game. To you maybe!
judes23 The Silent Rage M. PIRE	Posted - 2007.10.21 19:03:00 - [104] Edited by: judes23 on 21/10/2007 19:03:18 ya, i remember that nerf fot starwars...thoasands of players just left,. and thats going to happen to EVE if they keep up the nerfbatting i mean, one of these days some1 is going to fly to CCP headquaters, and break in, and demand that they unnerf everything right there and now...and some of u ppl might think..nah, that would NEVER happen, but think again there are crazy people out there who do play vidoe games like eve and they might. i personaly wouldnt lol, i mean, im a gamerkiller, but a peoplekiller no
Mattadore	Posted - 2007.10.21 19:04:00 - [105] This has got to be one of the dumbest nerfs ever. Those ships are so goddamn expensive. They are a huge risk to use anywhere because you invest to much isk and time into them. And you want to nerf them. Totally ridiculous. Someone fire that CCP guy, he doesn't know ** all. And the limit on the amount of drones?? What if a ceptor or dictor tries to tackle you? You're only going to use 5 Warrior IIs to kill him?....this is just dumb, totally dumb, not completely thought through. Stop nerfing , you only nerf because newer people * so much about losing to way more experienced pilots with alot more isk. ** the new people. They want to play, they can carebear in empire till they catch up like I and the rest of the players did. Seriously, stop with the nerfs damnit.
Aaron Mirrorsaver R.E.C.O.N.	Posted - 2007.10.21 19:09:00 - [106] Edited by: Aaron Mirrorsaver on 21/10/2007 19:11:33 I don't fly carriers, never seen them in much action. But as soon as I read that blog, my feelings echoed that of 95% of the people here. It is a terrible idea. Firstly a carrier doesn't do that much damage with nine deployed fighters anyway. I mean about 7-800 dps? Secondly, you stated you want carriers to be more then -keep-other-ships-alive-while-having-alittle-firepower-kind-of ship..... sorry dude but that role is already filled by logistics ships. So what we have here is a 1 billion costing logistic tech 1 ship aka the carrier. You want a keep alive ship? Field logistics. And oh a motherships bbqs battleships with 19 fighters quickly, well 20bn dollar ship against a 250 million ship kinda hurts. I think the problem is that CCP never expected there to be so many carrier pilots and cap ships on the field of battle, its clear because from the Patch notes for RMR(carriers with that expansion right?) they said, every alliance will be expected to field at least one on the battle field, yeah right, and they underestimated the richness of alliances in this game to replace said carriers at will etc etc. and have large capitals fleets. I was going to train for carriers myself, but they'll be expensive and useless and not worth the price for the ship + fitting after this nerf. no offense but I think you should go back to Q/A. Quote: Come on Star Trek Online Well that one might be DOA, dont expect to see it before 2010 the way its going... in development since 2004? Even stargate worlds started after sto and is almost done. R.E.C.O.N. is recruiting
judes23 The Silent Rage M. PIRE	Posted - 2007.10.21 19:11:00 - [107] Quote: Ill say again ccp ive played for three and a half years and ill quit instantly if you make this change. man, i so agree, ill quit 2, with about 100 other friends, with all of their alts added.. i think if they do nerf the carriers, every1 should just boycoat this game by just stop playing the game until CCP says, "oh.. this is bad, we justt lost 15k accounts... i wonder what we did...oh..the carriers.." and unnerfs them, and u know guys, this wont stop here. Why? all the carrier pilots will go to other ships, and master them. then those will get nerfed, until all whats left is tech1 frigates doing 10 DPS
Benn Helmsman Caldari Dark Prophecy Inc.	Posted - 2007.10.21 19:12:00 - [108] Originally by: judes23 Quote: Ill say again ccp ive played for three and a half years and ill quit instantly if you make this change. man, i so agree, ill quit 2, with about 100 other friends, with all of their alts added.. i think if they do nerf the carriers, every1 should just boycoat this game by just stop playing the game until CCP says, "oh.. this is bad, we justt lost 15k accounts... i wonder what we did...oh..the carriers.." and unnerfs them, and u know guys, this wont stop here. Why? all the carrier pilots will go to other ships, and master them. then those will get nerfed, until all whats left is tech1 frigates doing 10 DPS I was first, i get your stuff!
Chomapuraku Templar Republic R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.10.21 19:13:00 - [109] this nerf comes compliments of low-sec gatecampers (ender) and roaming solo-pwnmobilers (john roe). capital ships were never meant to be used for anything other than fleet support and logistics, and this nerf works towards sewing up that loose end. for mom pilots that trained them up to use as solo pwnmobiles, you were living on borrowed time, like nano-phoon pilots and pre-nerf titan pilots. that said, this nerf goes a little too far towards the desired end and comes out the other side. i think that to compensate, mom/carrier pilots should at least be able to script fighter delegation before launching them, then run the script to launch and delegate their fighters all at once. as for nerfing the number of deployed drones, i don't see why that's necessary, but they should at least add the ability to delegate regular drones to gang members on the same grid to compensate. having 25 large repper drones really helps out with pos-repping.
Ecky X The Aforementioned	Posted - 2007.10.21 19:13:00 - [110] Blah blah blah. I just finished months of training and spend all of my isk on capital skillbooks... and I'm happy to see this nerf. I'm still buying my Nidhoggur - which is about to become the best carrier. Poor Gallente. Seriously, you can't compete with a solo carrier without a huge gang. I think this puts capitals where they belong. -----

Closer Still	Posted - 2007.10.21 19:13:00 - [111] Edited by: Closer Still on 21/10/2007 19:15:09 i was gnna train for a chimera, but ccp just saved me a few months of training.. thx...! the carrier's dps was never that great to begin with. 1000-1500 dps for a ship that costs that much? give me a break. why didnt they even call it a carrier? why not "Overpriced Healing Brick"?
judes23 The Silent Rage M. PIRE	Posted - 2007.10.21 19:15:00 - [112] ..no..you wont, why? i dont want you to get good stuff for free. i worked very very very hard on buying everything for my carrier. i jsut finished buying all my skillbooks, and fittigns for my carrier, i only need the drones, the carrier, and riggs. but now im thinking...should i sell all of this? i mean i baught 3 drone control links, which gives u 1 extra drones if u didnt know this already...what happens to those? is CCP just going to make it like the snowball laucnher???
Jordan Musgrat Convergent Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.10.21 19:16:00 - [113] I'm desperately trying to think of how close we are to April Fools day, but the only thing I can come up with is that someone in corp said that yesterday was some midwest valentine's day II? Maybe.... This is just a joke on Valentines day :) Hahaha. Seriously if this goes through you suck CCP. I love this the most, I really honestly can't think of anything to say to it. "But seriously, the reason we want to implement something like this is that we feel that capital ships are being used way too much as better-than-battleships-at-killing-stuff ships, when we in fact think that they should be used more as the-ships-that-keep-other-ships-alive-and-provide-them-with-additional-firepower ships." I mean take a step back, and think about this. You. Don't. Want. Carriers. To. Kill. BS. You. Want. Them. To. Assign. Fighters. I'd like you to take another step back and review your past dev blogs, where you nerfed the carriers to where they're always in the open with fighters out. Take one last step back and look at how you've already nerfed MS to hell. Keep doing this and they will just be a carrier with an above average tank. To the poor nubbin who said something like "this is a great idea" I doubt you've ever seen any capital action other than that on the forums. I hope you get a clue. ----------- Primary is family values, secondary is 0.0...
judes23 The Silent Rage M. PIRE	Posted - 2007.10.21 19:19:00 - [114] oh and jordan, i bet all these people who are for this idea is just 1 or 2 ppl, with tons of alts justt posting the same thing in different words
Angor The JORG Corporation Methods of Mayhem Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.21 19:20:00 - [115] /whine: If they go ahead with this nerf then I'm quitting this bllsit game and I dont even use a carrier that much. Sick of these dumb ass nerf's, as if the carrier isnt a sitting duck without support anyway, 2 sensor damps on the thing and its as good as a floating turd and motherships die almost once a week these days. But if they do seriously go ahead with an idea such as this, then they seriously better sort out fighters, make them harder, higher resists, more damage, cheaper to build, whatever it takes to counter this nerf because they are a pure expensive joke as they are right now. CCP seriously needs to reconsider what they expect from their capitals because it looks to me like they dont have a clue what role they want them to play in this game. And although completly off subject, real life carriers when under attack wont launch 5 fighters and say "sorry thats the limit we can launch". Ugh reading that pi55ed me off. /whine over _______________________________ [ 2007.06.07 21:07:22 ] FrankyWave > ransom me guys I am joining XElas !!!
Zanarkand Gallente Enterprise Estonia Cult of War	Posted - 2007.10.21 19:20:00 - [116] I support this. My alt owns & flies a carrier.
judes23 The Silent Rage M. PIRE	Posted - 2007.10.21 19:21:00 - [117] Edited by: judes23 on 21/10/2007 19:22:12 hey you know, i jsut thought of this. This nerf might just bring all of the ever players together, just like how the Colitlation was made to fight angist BoB... but instead of fighting players, its fighting CCP lol..werid oh and angor, well said. i was going to post that about the real life carriers, but u beat me to it >.<
Ecky X The Aforementioned	Posted - 2007.10.21 19:25:00 - [118] EVE would be better off without capitals in general. Nerf em to hell I say! -----
Plave Okice Gallente 0utlaws	Posted - 2007.10.21 19:28:00 - [119] Boost Dreads, improve their carrier killing skills, make carriers unable to deploy fighters (but still can use drones) in low sec. Still keeps carriers the same for 0.0, removes the carrier and mom pwnge in low sec (something really does need doing about this) and actually makes dreads useful as combat ships too. Win, win.
judes23 The Silent Rage M. PIRE	Posted - 2007.10.21 19:31:00 - [120] Originally by: Plave Okice Boost Dreads, improve their carrier killing skills, make carriers unable to deploy fighters (but still can use drones) in low sec. Still keeps carriers the same for 0.0, removes the carrier and mom pwnge in low sec (something really does need doing about this) and actually makes dreads useful as combat ships too. Win, win. you know, i dont agree with the boost dreads and improve the carrier killing stuff, but i do agree with not beening able to deploy fighters in lowsec, thats a good idea..and hopefuly, that will stop all the crying

Mumemafu Praetoriam Minmatar Imperium .H.E.M.P. SYSTEM SHOCK INITIATIVE	Posted - 2007.10.21 19:44:00 - [121] One time I expend more the 4 mouhnts to get a larg 1400t2 and 1 week before a got it, CCP nerf it, now after 1 y 9 mounths in game, I got the skills ( so **** bored time and expenssive isk) after more time I got the danm Nidhoggur ( one off worst carrier, who told Minmatar are damage dealers???) and now after all bored time , CCP will put da ship easy to killed by 5 BS, Hey CCP, PLZ gimme back my $$ and my SP PLus my losed time to wait for this nerf. Dispite my bad english, I agrre w all guys, CCP wanna kick all old players, 1 time I was a noob w 20k up to 100k SP when start the game, today 2 yers later CCP will put me again like the 800K sp, may be eve is comming to be self-obliterade by some DEvs-carebears. yeah, next nerf by CCP - turn all 0.0 to 1.0 and realse all carebears to fly free w no risk. I ll quit it :P Oh God, I forgot tell about the 2 account to move the danm cursed nerf ship... snip - signature removed. Please email us at [email protected] with a link to the signature in question if you want to know why. -Ivan K
judes23 The Silent Rage M. PIRE	Posted - 2007.10.21 19:46:00 - [122] yea man, if they nerf the carrier, it will be the 5th ship the nerf RIGHT before i get into it
meef Demonic Retribution Pure.	Posted - 2007.10.21 19:49:00 - [123] 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! What he said ^
HottieWitAbody	Posted - 2007.10.21 19:51:00 - [124] The QQs of 10s of GTC funded mom owners makes me happy in the pants. Seriously though, dumbest change ever (right behind wtz).
Benn Helmsman Caldari Dark Prophecy Inc.	Posted - 2007.10.21 19:59:00 - [125] Originally by: judes23 yea man, if they nerf the carrier, it will be the 5th ship the nerf RIGHT before i get into it Stop training for FOTM
Xilimyth Derlin OldBastardsPub SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.21 20:00:00 - [126] Edited by: Xilimyth Derlin on 21/10/2007 20:02:10 Wow... I feel like the only one on the planet whom this doesn't bother. Least I'll actually get to fly a fleet support ship as MOST carriers are (IRL or OL). ^_^ Edit: Oh, and Adapt or Die. (Sorry, it's a good quote that everyone's always said.... still holds true here)
Kronn Blackthorne 0utbreak	Posted - 2007.10.21 20:02:00 - [127] Edited by: Kronn Blackthorne on 21/10/2007 20:05:55 yey , let fly a 80 bil ship to deploy 5 fighters like a 1 bil ship ...oh well that s stupid .... let just stop to play , RL is less nerfed .... seriously , with recent dictor bubble change , we saw titans / mom are not so safe anymore . Can t even imagine with the dictor cruiser incoming . so now u wanna nerf the only thing they are good for : dmg deal ? in this case no point flying a mothership over a carrier , u can get bout 60 carriers fitted for a mom well fitted ..... hey mister i-just-got-promoted-to-a-high-place , keep ur head on ur shoulders , and play the game before proposing some changes The Frenchy
Senator Martin'Lefouret	Posted - 2007.10.21 20:28:00 - [128] Originally by: gordon cain Oh well, I can always go play "pirates" when that is out and come back when they fixed it again. Gordon Cain I got in on the beta testing, you actualy have to do a lot of effort to loose anything in that game Btw ccp are you gonna keep nerfing everything till i finaly decide to press the cancel subscription button?
Greggor	Posted - 2007.10.21 20:37:00 - [129] Great idea as long as you increase the total number of fighters a carier can deploy to say 25 minimum just to balance it out a bit your taking a lot away from us carier pilots so how about giving a bit back
DTee 0utbreak	Posted - 2007.10.21 20:42:00 - [130] Since this is the worst idea ever. Please refrain from presenting anymore ideas.

Daroek Ko'thon The Aforementioned	Posted - 2007.10.21 20:53:00 - [131] Everyone hating on the carrier / mothership idea is a ******. You can't possibly know how the final idea will come out, and how it'll work out in the game, so why don't you stop whining and go have your mom change your diaper? Sheez, you're all a bunch of crybabies.
DarkFollower Amarr Wreckless Abandon Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.10.21 20:58:00 - [132] Ok, first off i don't fly a carrier / mom , but even i can see this just out of the blue and completly ilogical It's not even inline with what the other dev blogs before stated , i mean start with using them just to assign fighters , then nerf the fighter dmg when assigned to get them more out of the open just to get them back to pos huggin alt ships? and lol around the solo pwnmobiles comment, to who said that can u tell me where can i find you solo ? i wont come with to many guys , just 1 or 2 lachesis and some hacs , and well see how good u're carrier is to solo stuff And what about the mothership then , what would that multi bilion ship do? immune to ew and that's about it, and not even that , if it's cought by a dictor bubble and dosen't have support bye bye mothership So in the end both the carrier and the mothership require support to not get killed, if they don't have support they die simple as that ....so their not solo pwnmobiles can we agree on that? Carriers / moms are "uber deathbringer" , and how are they uber deathbringer? sure they do great dmg if theyr targets stay where they are . but i for one when i see some fighters after me i don't tend to stay to much there to see the dmg unless i'm lagged out Maybe that's what is this all about fighters are not affected by lag ,if this is it , then the problem is not with the fighters but with the lag Do i make sense ? Maybe the next phase will be that each fighter to be a actual player and the more veteran player(carrier pilot) launch the more inexperienced drone like players to attack his targets right ? that would make more sense no? by u're logic Cap recharges on PvP ships Suxxor monkey ballzorz!!
Orb Lati Minmatar Cold-Fury Southern Cross Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.21 21:01:00 - [133] You wish to stop carriers and moms being solopwn mobiles in low sec. simple. Make gate and station turrets assign fighters and drones as higher priority targets. Lets see how many Caps gate camp for easy ganks when every salvo from a gate turret kills 40M in fighters every few seconds. "We worship Strength because it is through strength that all other values are made possible"
Juggernaut Kell Caldari 0utbreak	Posted - 2007.10.21 21:03:00 - [134] Wow way to make a debut introducing one of the stupidest ideas ever!!! Hell while your at it, why dont we just convert eve to an undersea adventure and make all the ships submarines and put fish and crabs where the belts used to be? Please go back and play pong or better yet D & D on a cardbaord box. Your ideas are horrible and you must have done ALOT more then just show your resume to get into the position you are in.
Corrosus	Posted - 2007.10.21 21:06:00 - [135] And Eve continues on it's path to middle of the road mediocrity. Stop bringing out new "features" in every new patch and deciding we need to see our chars walking around stations or that structures need to be shinier and brighter with more lights on them.......fix the god-damned lag instead. Bloody nerf-bats
killerco Gallente The Flying Dutchmen Antesignani Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.21 21:10:00 - [136] Stop with the nerf bats ccp work on the lag not nerfing carriers/MO's . Go do something usefull instead off making this game crappyer!!! Bloody Noobs
Norjia Blacksteel Gallente Blacksteel Mining and Manufacturing Apoapsis Multiversal Consortium	Posted - 2007.10.21 21:11:00 - [137] Originally by: Juggernaut Kell Hell while your at it, why dont we just convert eve to an undersea adventure and make all the ships submarines and put fish and crabs where the belts used to be? You know... if that were only a few day's coding and art, that would be really funny for April Fool's day. ---- Norjia Blacksteel CEO Blacksteel Mining and Manufacturing
judes23 The Silent Rage M. PIRE	Posted - 2007.10.21 21:12:00 - [138] corr, i so agree with that
Jai Cee Quam Singulari	Posted - 2007.10.21 21:14:00 - [139] I have to ask whether whoever came up with this "idea" has ever actually used capital ships or fought against them? These ships are entirely dependant on their support fleets, I've been in small gangs (less than 20 mostly not in BS) that have quite easily killed motherships that have been stupid enough to solo and have been in a smallish gang without cap support that killed a Mom that thought it would be fun to go ratting in both cases without any losses. Capital ships are totally vulnerable to small ship gangs as it is, if these changes go through then a carrier would be good for nothing but sitting at a POS repping its shields. The big problem with carriers is the lag that drones generate and this nerf only helps that because no-one will want to fly a carrier anymore when they can fly a dominix instead. Can I have my ISK and SP back because this change makes nearly 6 months of dedicated training useless!
Icome4u Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L	Posted - 2007.10.21 21:18:00 - [140] CCP you now have lost rights to keep working on this game. Sell the game rights to people who know how to please their customers.

the killer3	Posted - 2007.10.21 21:20:00 - [141] my opignon is that carrier with only 5 drone is a wrong idea. carrier are powerfull ship, with only 5 drone, they are weak... and useless. so, i accept compromise... i propose : okay, 5 drone or fighter for carrier... but i want a +20% damage bonus per level... so the carrier have less drone/fighter but have the same firepower.
Brka Vendetta Underground Rule of Three	Posted - 2007.10.21 21:35:00 - [142] Edited by: Brka on 21/10/2007 21:35:41 This has got to be one of the worst ideas CCP Quality Assurance ever came up with. Months ago you wanted them on the front lines. Soon they will be basically wrecks without support fleet. Given I like the idea to ruin carrier pilots days but seriously CCP Devs... if it isn't broke don't fix it. Just because its something tough, you shouldn't take away a carrier's main defensive/offensive platform. Basically it ruins them. Cheers. This is a truly bad BAD idea. Like car wreck bad. Try again.
judes23 The Silent Rage M. PIRE	Posted - 2007.10.21 21:43:00 - [143] Originally by: Icome4u CCP you now have lost rights to keep working on this game. Sell the game rights to people who know how to please their customers. lol i was talking to my corp mates about that, and i said, "HEY! CCP should sell their rights to Bungi, they know how to make good games that they cant nerf when made =D"
Aaron Mirrorsaver R.E.C.O.N.	Posted - 2007.10.21 21:44:00 - [144] dude it wasn't QA that came up with this, its a guy who has been in QA for two years and just got a promotion to the design team. he will wtf pwn bbq eve with this promotion. Let's not let carriers be able to kill battleships. I mean WW2 saw the replacement of the BS by carriers as the most important ships in the fleet. Rename the class of ship, cause it aint a carrier no more. R.E.C.O.N. is recruiting
BOldMan Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.10.21 21:45:00 - [145] 5 are too much. Carrier dont need drones or fighter. They should only smartbomb. Please adjust the nerf is not finished.
Angor The JORG Corporation Methods of Mayhem Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.21 21:47:00 - [146] Originally by: judes23 Originally by: Icome4u CCP you now have lost rights to keep working on this game. Sell the game rights to people who know how to please their customers. lol i was talking to my corp mates about that, and i said, "HEY! CCP should sell their rights to Bungi, they know how to make good games that they cant nerf when made =D" lol selling the game to Bungie would be funny but then Microsoft would own it. We'd see halo style fighting in stations :P _______________________________ [ 2007.06.07 21:07:22 ] FrankyWave > ransom me guys I am joining XElas !!!
badbull Quam Singulari	Posted - 2007.10.21 21:49:00 - [147] carrier = transport ship now tbh i blame the goons and ccp,goons moaning about the lagg with drones and fighters and ccp giving into them again
Jack Jombardo Amarr	Posted - 2007.10.21 21:55:00 - [148] Originally by: Aaron Mirrorsaver dude it wasn't QA that came up with this, its a guy who has been in QA for two years and just got a promotion to the design team. he will wtf pwn bbq eve with this promotion. Let's not let carriers be able to kill battleships. I mean WW2 saw the replacement of the BS by carriers as the most important ships in the fleet. Rename the class of ship, cause it aint a carrier no more. the captain of a carrier NEVER flys a single airplain his ship carries. He in person is just a HAULER!
Aaron Mirrorsaver R.E.C.O.N.	Posted - 2007.10.21 21:57:00 - [149] 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 R.E.C.O.N. is recruiting
Kazamidori Division 9 Golden Leaves Izanagi Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.21 22:01:00 - [150] I don't think limiting the carrier's fighter control to 5 at a time is such a bad step in balancing. Carriers are meant to be used with supports, and they should be balanced as such. The problem is, is that fighter drone's AI is so bad and so buggy, that fighter attachment doesn't offer the same level of fluidity they are meant to offer. Drones get lost, they warp off and never come back, etc. etc. Carrier balance must come with drone AI upgrades. As for regular drones, I don't understand why there is a need to nerf this. Carriers are meant to be support ships, yes, but a one-trick pony will deteriorate the carrier's role in EVE to one that is seriously boring. Sit back, attach fighters on frigs and fighter bomb. The reason being that without the regular drones, carriers have no reasonable method to defend itself or provide extra firepower for the gang. Repair is nice, but for a one-trick pony, logistics are equally as effective. Lastly, after the POS system have been changed, it now costs dreads(and BS) more isk to destroy auxiliary modules on a POS than those modules cost themselves. I haven't done an exact calculation, but taking down small guns cost atleast 10x in ammo than its market price. Carriers with sentry drones are perfect for mopping up, and reducing the number of drones available also increase the severe annoyance which is the POS mop-up. --- Izanagi Alliance

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 as. 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.

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 ::.

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.

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

Retaxis	Posted - 2007.10.22 18:30:00 - [271] Hey... The Rorqual is the new mothership... Hehe. Clone bay, shield transport bonus. Great drones... Why do we even need carriers anymore ? Just get rid of 'em. Blob a couple of Rorquals with a some Moros' & you have a better unit anyway. What's all the excitement about ? (sarcasm, all of it, please don't flame me)
Drist Grettistak	Posted - 2007.10.22 18:33:00 - [272] If anything Carriers need more power not less What a stupid idea
Gargh Ahhwell Caldari Grettistak	Posted - 2007.10.22 18:36:00 - [273] Originally by: Drist If anything Carriers need more power not less What a stupid idea NERF CCP NERF CCP NERF CCP no seriously this change will just alienate alot of the playerbase Life dont talk too me about life.
Zaratustra Arrogance Unlimited	Posted - 2007.10.22 18:53:00 - [274] As a carrier pilot, I feel I have to weigh in on the issue. My first carrier (on carrier #2) was built within weeks of the Red Moon Rising release going live. The corp I was in at the time was about 50 members strong, and we mined our little usually-PvP assess off for weeks in advance to put that BPO in the oven as fast as we possibly could. We sat through the bug where carrier BPO's couldn't be installed in low-sec stations, twiddling our thumbs while CCP took their own sweet time to fix the issue. The result? One of the first carriers to grace the server, and one which we put into immediate use. While everyone else was PoS hugging in their carriers, we used our carrier as a front-line 0.0 fighter in small gangs, well before the global HP buff that vastly increased capital ship HP. 387 kills later, the carrier finally bit the dust to a very well executed trap in a low-sec system that I was goofing around in. A week later, I bought my second carrier, which is still with me to this day. I love carriers as they are currently implemented in EVE. They aren't solo pwnmobiles by any means. Yes, they do a lot of damage...to battlecruisers and up. Yes, they have a large tank...compared to other non-capital ships. Yes, they have very nice logistics capabilities...at the cost of some front-line survivability. Reading these changes, frankly, I'm shocked. There are two things going on here that need addressing. Issue #1 - Taking the time to assign, re-assign, assing, re-assign, assign, re-assign fighters in a lagged out system (which we find even in empire with only TWENTY PILOTS in-system at the time) is going to increase frustration on the part of the carrier pilots several fold. This is a game. It's supposed to be fun. I can't see anything remotely fun about solely paying attention to who is calling for fighters at any given moment. Paying attention to that, AND who needs repping, AND what the primary/secondary targets are, AND if you're being locked/targetted/scrammed/etc... is a lot to deal with. So, to boil Issue #1 down - you are increasing frustration levels without truly affecting any other change. You're going to force carriers into larger and larger gangs, simply so that there are equitable numbers of pilots to support the number of fighters that can be deployed, thus increasing lag, thus magnifying the frustration level as the fighters you assigned 7 minutes ago still haven't responded because EVE is operating at slideshow speeds. Or, when operating in a small-gang format, you are at times not realizing the carrier's full potential due to a lack of supporting ships. Issue #2 - You're taking a billion isk ship, in the case of a carrier, and saying that if it is caught alone by a Dominix (a 60M isk ship), that you want it to be a somewhat even fight. A carrier with 5 fighters (assuming Fighters IV, Carrier IV) does roughly 540 DPS, while being able to tank a hell of a lot. A dominix with 5 Ogre II's (assuming Gallente Drone Spec IV and Heavy Drones V) does 467 damage, while being able to tank well for a battleship. What you are saying is that this fight should be a draw. 5 fighters will not be able to break a Dominix's tank, if it is setup even remotely correctly. 5 Ogre II's will obviously face a similar situation as the fighters. Do you see the problem here? A 60 million isk specialized drone ship is able to perform the exact functions as a 1 billion isk specialized drone ship, if said 1 billion isk specialized drone ship is caught alone for whatever reason.
Zaratustra Arrogance Unlimited	Posted - 2007.10.22 18:54:00 - [275] What you are doing with this change is ignoring the holistic look at balance. You can't see the forest for the trees. You have, as another poster in this thread has said, pushed carriers to the frontlines (which I like, as that's how my carrier has always operated) with the several last "fixes". Can't assign fighters from inside a PoS shield, fine. Have a nifty new module to help out with frontline remote repping, sweet. Having to go through an aggravating and cumbersome process so that the pilot can achieve the EXACT same thing that they can do now, idiotic. If the way that fighters work stands as it is for now, the DPS from the carriers will drop EVEN IF you have all your fighters delegated to other gang mates, as the bonus to fighter damage from the Fighters skill does NOT apply to remotely assigned ships. This change adds neither fun, nor does it "fix" anything. You are simply encouraging more lag (more people in space to handle the additional fighters), which equates to more frustration (it's impossible to activate modules, assign drones, etc... with EVE running at a slideshow like it currently does in most fights), which equates to the ships being used less (who wants to deal with crappy mechanics that add frustration, not fun?). What this adds up to is a terrible design decision.
Dray Caldari Spartan Industries Cruel Intentions	Posted - 2007.10.22 18:54:00 - [276] Looks like the latest piece of balancing genius went down like a cheap h00ker in a room full of sailors. Balancing, hahhahahahaha, no really hahahahhahhahahahahhahhahahhahaha, no please stop it your killing me. Was this the result of a brainstorming session or a ***** pipe session. If thats the best you can come up with, dont bother, seriously.
Janus Veyron DarkStar Armada	Posted - 2007.10.22 18:55:00 - [277] Come on guys its not like a carrier is supposed to be a support and fleet logistics ship. Oh, wait a minute, it is!.
Juggernaut Kell Caldari 0utbreak	Posted - 2007.10.22 19:21:00 - [278] Edited by: Juggernaut Kell on 22/10/2007 19:23:54 Originally by: Jack Jombardo Edited by: Jack Jombardo on 21/10/2007 22:16:51 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. EDIT: maybe that's the problem. Even 20 billion isn't expensive enough as there are to many solo people who can affort this without a Corp/Ally. Solution: rise the needed fuel-need to a value where it will be imposible for a single person to affort. or: remove the ability to fitt ANY offens exept Fighters. no smartbombs/turrets/launcher, no webber, no scrambler/jammer. just fleet-suport-modules and defens equip. Please just shut up Noob, you have NO idea what you are talking about.
Chief Judge	Posted - 2007.10.22 19:32:00 - [279] After initial negative attitude towards this change i thought for it for a while.. Motherships arent supposed to go solo.. there musnt be any ship in the game that can do that kind of pwnage solo and almost impossible to take down.. they have even better tanks than titans.. 1st they are logistic ships.. 2nd-ly everything else.. They are still powerfull even with this change and quite worthwile to fly.. With delegating fighters they still are powerfull.. U just have to get a few of your buddys with you(3-4 ppl..) Idea is not bad.. i would only add one thing.. With this change i would also allow caps in triage to field those 5 fighters/drones.. to have some of the offensive ability.. Basically change would be -100% on delegated drones.. This is only my humble opinion.. please confront opinions not eachother.. respect to all ppl that present their opinions in civilized manner..
kessah Blood Corsair's	Posted - 2007.10.22 20:15:00 - [280] Edited by: kessah on 22/10/2007 20:18:20 ITS ABOUT TIME! i knew i could trust CCP not to force me into capitals. sweet that means carriers only do.... what 250 dps now without assigning ?? hahaha yeah baby Nah seriously its brilliant idea - Carriers and Mom's shouldnt be flying solo nor lacking support - yes the mainstay ship of eve should always be the battleship. The middle ship of Eve and should be the most important. Carrier's should be vunerable to them as BS's are to frigs. -------------------------------------------------------- [Video] Forever Pirate 3

Trask Kilraen The Older Gamers R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.10.22 20:34:00 - [281] Originally by: kessah Edited by: kessah on 22/10/2007 20:18:20 ITS ABOUT TIME! i knew i could trust CCP not to force me into capitals. sweet that means carriers only do.... what 250 dps now without assigning ?? hahaha yeah baby Nah seriously its brilliant idea - Carriers and Mom's shouldnt be flying solo nor lacking support - yes the mainstay ship of eve should always be the battleship. The middle ship of Eve and should be the most important. Carrier's should be vunerable to them as BS's are to frigs. Uhh... they are now. I have been in involved in multiple carrier ganks where the gang attcking the carrier (even MULTIPLE carriers) were BS only. It isn't that hard really. Just keep the damage dealers aligned to warp, and they warp out as soon as the flshy red fighters get close. Easy peasy. Honestly, a solo carrier, or even a solo mom isn't THAT much of a threat to a BS gang if they are reasonably careful. Honestly, your garden variety nano-gang is more dangerous. ------------------------------------------
Neo Rainhart Caldari Leela's Lamas	Posted - 2007.10.22 20:46:00 - [282] Edited by: Neo Rainhart on 22/10/2007 20:49:54 Originally by: kessah ITS ABOUT TIME! i knew i could trust CCP not to force me into capitals. This Originally by: Benn Helmsman 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. And that ♥♥♥
Hyakuchan Earth Federation Space Force	Posted - 2007.10.22 20:56:00 - [283] Edited by: Hyakuchan on 22/10/2007 21:06:56 Originally by: Trask Kilraen Honestly, a solo carrier, or even a solo mom isn't THAT much of a threat to a BS gang if they are reasonably careful. Honestly, your garden variety nano-gang is more dangerous. However, the mom is not at all concerned about the BS gang. The problem right now is that there is no serious threat to moms in lowsec. There is essentially nothing they fear. If a mom pilot and his cyano alt do their job right you simply cannot force a mom to die. They HAVE to **** up in order for you to kill them. The absence of consequences makes it overpowered. There is no consequence to lowsec ganking so eventually, played out to the logical conclusion, every player who chose to would put up a mom gatecamp of their own. Why the hell not? By taking away the massive solo dps advantage, they'll FORCE mom players to use the ship the way it was intended to be used: as the centerpiece of a fleet. Which means having a flotilla of players, or at least alts, on hand to command the fighter forces. That will make it harder to do, which in turn means fewer people will do it. People use moms as lowsec solo machines because it's easy to do and doesn't involve teamwork. For the people who actually play the game as CCP intended it to be played, this is not a nerf. Carriers and moms were SUPPOSED to be fleet ships, lending out fighters to gangmates and generally serving as a nexus of corp/fleet activity. -------------------------------------------------- "Only the stupid rob the poor."
Montol	Posted - 2007.10.22 21:14:00 - [284] Edited by: Montol on 22/10/2007 21:16:52 Alright, I'm just gonna get this off of my chest, this is a very bad idea as it is currently being presented. Why you may ask? simple, you wish to take a carrier, a CARRIER, a ship known in any culture for launching many smaller ships to do all of its work, whether up close or far away, and limit to only having 5 it can control itself. But ok, lets take a bit closer look from your standpoint. A carrier or mom can launch dozens of drones and incinerate a battleship pretty dang quick, sure it makes em sound like solopwnmobiles, but the fact is that a carrier can be easily ganked with anyone who thinks about it just a little bit, and as proven awhile back even mom's aren't invincible in low-sec, so why make them even more vulnerable when they take such a large effort to be built in the first place? Furthermore, having to delegate fighters to members 5 drones at a time is time consuming, and in the heat of battle is very costly. Also, if you aren't giving any kind of extra bonus to the fighter/drone damage of those under the direct control of the carrier pilot, then when carriers do solo runs(cause lets face it, a carrier cant always have a fleet with it)and gets jumped by some random BC or BS, now instead of being able to take it out n get out they can't even blow it up and will be a sitting duck for the guys friends to come along then poof, a multi-billion isk ship is taken out because it can't kill a 2 month old character. Another thing, what happens to the fighters you've assigned to a pilot and their ship is blown up? since it's stated that you can only launch 5, assign, then launch another 5,do they return to your bay, or just float in space waiting for you to scoop them up? To carry on, we'd now be only being able to launch 5 standard drones, why? it takes forever as is for a carrier to lock things smaller than a BS, and if your worried that a carrier can use 15 warrior II's to pop a frigate or cruiser instantly than you might as well remove the damage bonus to drones for the moros as it can essentially do the same thing with 5 drones. Anyways, enough about drones and all, lets look at the aspect you want us to use more with carriers, and that would be the 'keeping other ships alive' part. Now lets see, carriers are rather gimped as is for remote repping, mainly since using capital repairers on ships smaller than BS is a major waste of cap, and fitting smaller reppers means you have to be ramming the guy, and with the proposed nerf to only 5 standard drones we can no longer use hordes of rep drones and will actually be more encouraged to use fighters and just sit in a safespot, thus negating your desire for us to be healers, mainly because you'd be better off having a domi loaded with rep drones and remote reppers to play healer, or even just a logistics cruiser. The only solution I'd see to this is: a) for each race's carrier add a max launch amount per level for their races repair drone (ie thanatos would have a bonus to how many armor maintenance bots it can launch) b)give a bonus to the remote rep range of all repairers, not just the capital module c) combo of A and B, or d) leave max amount of regular drones alone and give bonus to all remote repairer ranges and voila, you have a remote repping carrier with 15 repair drones, your dream come true! Well... thats my two cents on the issue right now, if I feel up to it I'll add on later. Don't nerf the carrier!
djenghis jan Amarr Debiloff's Vanguard	Posted - 2007.10.22 21:24:00 - [285] I have no idea where this comes from, but i put a large amount of sp into cap ships and so far i have never fired a shot in anger. I once did a mission in one, but decided a bs is better at it. Now i do pos maintenance with it. So i say, remove the drone bay altogether, increase the cargo bay and call it a freighter with a jump drive. Basically that is what it is already.
Admiral Hunter	Posted - 2007.10.22 21:25:00 - [286] this idea is ******, i just spent the last 3 months preparing for my carrier and i find out ccp plans on changing the damn game again. If this nerf takes effect I want my money back(about 450 US) for the last 2 years because you just wasted all that time ive spent playing eve. Here is somthing you ccp developers should think about LEAVE THE DRONE SHIPS ALONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Drones are 1 of only 2 types of damage that can be stoped ie DRONES CAN BE KILLED!!!!! and all you **suckers that say this is a good idea you probally never flown a drone boat or you are so new you have no idea how combat works so SHUT IT.
SIr Urza	Posted - 2007.10.22 21:27:00 - [287] Edited by: SIr Urza on 22/10/2007 21:31:13 THIS IDEA IS STUPID!!! I mean a 2b ship (ship + fitting) and a 30b+fitting ship being able to defend itself only with 5 effing DRONES??? ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!! I hope you are cause that idea is BS!! and not the kid of BS you kill ingame! Soo you have your MILF (MOM) and you have the same ablity to fight as a Dominix?? ahh but yeah you can use fighter drones (sarcasm) SOO what? ONLY 5! how do you expect to defend a ship agains who know how many BS's, support and Capital ships with ONLY 5 DRONES!! If you go with this... I'll pull suicide ganks in Jita everyday untill the node crashes (lol) in a way to protest lol! Ahh and I'll want my money back for the time I spent Specing for such a USELESS SHIP (depends on you)
Breal D'nie	Posted - 2007.10.22 21:29:00 - [288] Edited by: Breal D''nie on 22/10/2007 21:32:24 i might not know what im talking about here, due to the fact that i can't/don't fly a carrier/mom, but it seems that the problem with the current status is that moms are camping low sec and just jump when a fleet that can kill them shows up. so it seems obvious that if you were to remove the EW immunity that would solve that prob. who would use a mom to solo in low sec then? from what i have read, carriers don't get used to solo nearly as much as mom's. don't nerf the dps, but but nerf the solo capability of the moms and ppl would be alot happier. Thoughts/oppinions? EDIT: oh, btw how much does a mom really cost? it seems every time there is a post with a price it goes up by 1B?!
SIr Urza	Posted - 2007.10.22 21:33:00 - [289] Edited by: SIr Urza on 22/10/2007 21:34:03 Originally by: Breal D'nie i might not know what im talking about here, due to the fact that i can't/don't fly a carrier/mom, but it seems that the problem with the current status is that moms are camping low sec and just jump when a fleet that can kill them shows up. so it seems obvious that if you were to remove the EW immunity that would solve that prob. who would use a mom to solo in low sec then? from what i have read, carriers don't get used to solo nearly as much as mom's. don't nerf the dps, but but nerf the solo capability of the moms and ppl would be alot happier. Thoughts/oppinions? Then what's the point of spending 30b (only in the ship) if you can buy 30 carriers for the same price that will be able to do (ergo NOT DO) the same crap as a MoM? EDIT: If you lookign for prices on MoMs just look at the selling forums...
Crystal Starbreeze The Ankou	Posted - 2007.10.22 21:36:00 - [290] I'm going to try and put a useful comment however i fear that the devs will probably not even see it as it will be buried amongst 10+ pages of justifiable complaints on this proposed nerf. Here is the crux of the issue. People took alot of time and money to fly a captial ships expecting their investment to pay off. This nerf is, well, seriously screwed up. What is the initial investment in time and money. Using eve-mon, a new character with +4 implants and all the skills you <b>SHOULD HAVE</b> to effectively use a carrier/motheship and survive in front line battle, you are looking at a minimum investment of around: <b>Carrier</b>: 452 days (1 year 3 months give or take) of training. Total cost for ship and skills add up to around 2.5 billion isk for your first carrier, skills, proper tech 2 equipment and capital mods, fighters, drones, etc. <b>Mothership</b>: 640 days of training (1 year 9 months give or take). Total cost for ship and skills is easily 35 billion isk plus if you aren't a noob and equip officer mods on such an expensive ship as you should. Hell i think the real cost is probably closer to 50 billion isk as was said somewhere in this thread. <i>Skills times may vary and my estimates are what I feel are necessary to fly a armor tanked carrier after some experience in carriers. Some skills are useful for other ships but mind you i have no offensive weapon skills (other than drones and the base skills given at character creation)</i> I would love someone to explain why the above investment in both time and money does not make it worthy of killing battleships. IS the time and money worth a ship delegated to POS hugging defense, not offensive in anyway. I dont know the figures but i would estimate half the population had capital ship dreams and is eithr there already, close to it, or making their way there. By nerfing this you affect a large portion of the population making a ship worthless in the "real world" of EVE. A nerf of this magnitude would make the above investment worthless. I agree with people that this nerf would make a carrier nothing but an large dominix. In fact a dominix would probably out dps the carrier and is more viable for armor repping support due to the carrier lock times. Delegation of fighters will not work except in planned circumstances like defense. No longer will you see Carriers jumping offensively or "on the front lines" as CCP wants. I hope this makes it a little more clear why this Idea is very very bad and should just be filed in the circular recycler. In fact even proposing such a nerf has made me lose a little more respect for the developers. The path they have taken as of late, does not improve the game, rather make it more and more undesirable to play. Dont make the same mistake Sony did with SWG, please. CCP listen to your users and DO NOT implement such a nerf.

OSughhi Romanian Army of ManiaCS	Posted - 2007.10.22 21:41:00 - [291] Originally by: Angor 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 They killed in less than 0.1 sec that ms? Because in first 0.2 some bs should died.
Tecam Hund Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2007.10.22 21:52:00 - [292] I think it's a sensible idea. Carrier should not be able to launch oversized swarms of regular drones, and instead should rely on gang support for protection from smaller targets. Inability to launch all fighters without assigning also seems good because it does not limit Carrier's damage output but stops it from being an all purpose jump-to-bait weapon.
infinityshok	Posted - 2007.10.22 22:06:00 - [293] I am beyond disgusted that this suggestion was even permitted to come up. This goes far beyond a nerf, this is the elimination of an entire class of ships from eve. A class of ship that I have spent a massive amount of RL and in-game time on to be able to fly. The skills, cost in time, and cost in isk, to acquire a MS more than makes up for its ability to 'melt' a BS in .2 seconds. MS's are becoming more common than they were but that does not change the fact that actually flying one is a massive undertaking and should have a corresponding reward. Please reference my post in the dev comments thread to see my feelings toward this dev and his harebrained idea that only a lobotomized monkey would appreciate.
Valandril Caldari Resurrection R i s e	Posted - 2007.10.22 22:06:00 - [294] Edited by: Valandril on 22/10/2007 22:13:12 Originally by: Tecam Hund I think it's a sensible idea. Carrier should not be able to launch oversized swarms of regular drones, and instead should rely on gang support for protection from smaller targets. Inability to launch all fighters without assigning also seems good because it does not limit Carrier's damage output but stops it from being an all purpose jump-to-bait weapon. U forgot the fact that after this change carrier will be good only for pos hugin, nothing else, and it WILL loose it dps, u can control only 5 fighters, so simple u won't be able to kill anyting (anything that u could possibly kill will be fast enought to run away). Sure, its stupid that vets get benefits for beeing vets, not like banner-slogan of eve was "We reward for time" right ? Not like eve is awesome because in others mmo after couple months newbie can be better than 3 years players, while in eve this is not possible. --- Battlecarriers - lets move carriers to the front line !
marshal123 Wreckless Abandon Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.10.22 22:41:00 - [295] This is quite possibly the dumbest and least thought out idea anyone in ccp has come up with. 1) I vote no to the nerf 2) Fire the c**t that came up with the idea he obviously is'nt worth paying for.
Futher Bezluden Minmatar ORIGIN SYSTEMS Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.22 22:45:00 - [296] Rotten shot CCP, you really know how to treat your players. non-capitals are too uber with their 3-8 guns causing so much lag. Reduce all ships to 1 weapon then give all ships a 200-800% damage bonus and rof to compensate. THUKKER -Be Paranoid
drumetu	Posted - 2007.10.22 22:46:00 - [297] It's easy. If get nerfed no point to keep alts.
Benn Helmsman Caldari Dark Prophecy Inc.	Posted - 2007.10.22 23:30:00 - [298] Edited by: Benn Helmsman on 22/10/2007 23:30:40 It is pretty funny everyone is whining about that a gang can take a solo carrier appart. THAT IS NOT THE POINT! The point is, there is no way to take a 50+ carrier fleet apart. It is just impossible thx to remote repping and the technical limitation of how many ships you can field. I say, carriers can keep their fighters all for themself, if they would have to enter a "siege" mode like dreads to deploy them. So they cant get remote repped while deploying fighters. That would solve the blobbing pretty much. Add: and the stupid damp issue
Devian 666 Igneus Auctorita GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.10.22 23:44:00 - [299] I think that there should be a rule for dev blogs: STATE YOUR OBJECTIVE FIRST TO HELP CONSTRUCTIVE DISCUSSION. [/yelling] The objective should also deal with issues in gameplay. A carrier should be hard to kill but having a warp scrambled carrier with a gang incapable of killing it is just griefing. At least if the carrier can fight then the balance can change during the fight rather than being deadlocked (and boring). If the idea is to reduce the number of fighters in space. Then reduce the fighters to 5 and give them 5 times the firepower and about 2.5 to 3.5 times the hit points. The fighter assignment idea is already done for most conflicts where the cap ships do not want direct contact. So it's a moot point. The limit on launcher then assignment is only for the purpose of torturing the carrier/ms pilot with the awful drone control interface (that really needs to be fixed). Even if the carrier is supposed to be a heavy logistics ship you do not lump it in the same class as the ms. MS and Titans are, in game play terms, in the same class being supercapitals. The issues relating to ms are different and the issues with low sec supercapitals is a separate issue again. Deal with the three separate issues as separate issues. Dealing with one issue and pretending it'll deal with the others is not appropriate for game balancing. I agree I don't have the features to be a holoreel star. Quote: Astarte Nosferatu > You'd mind if I ask for your asl? SirMolle > eh?
Kyoi Shuttles Dont Tank Well	Posted - 2007.10.22 23:46:00 - [300] Worst Idea Ever Yep this is great anti-blob work, lets make everyone clutter the field in shuttles assigning fighters. Surely the lag in fleet battles is bad enough already without people in noobships/shuttles assigning fighters and carrier pilots having to struggle 30mins actually trying to get them assigned. One of the huge reasons good alliances are good is because of their working together to create a capital or supercapital fleet, you can see sides with less numbers smashing other sides because they actually worked together as an alliance to create a capital fleet. This seems to me to be one of the pro-blob changes I could think of. Good work CCP every change you add seems to only add to blob wars.

Davlin Lotze STK Scientific Black-Out	Posted - 2007.10.22 23:47:00 - [301] I find it more than ironic that most of the support for the nerf are cowardly alts. Quite likely CCP alts tbfh.
xStarbuck	Posted - 2007.10.22 23:48:00 - [302] I really hope this doesn't go through... This change is just lazy without finding a real solution to the problem - Only increases lag in fleet fights and means you are going to see 100 shuttles flying around assigning fighters... when the lag lets them. Crap Idea.
Freelanc3r Caldari Xoth Inc Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.10.22 23:54:00 - [303] Totally Moronic CCP. One of the most terrible ideas I have seen in a long time. Right along there with the NGE for SWG. Carriers die very quickly without a support fleet as it is, perhaps limiting the amount of remote reps that can go on carriers might be a way to go instead of this change. Fleet fights always have unbearable lag anyway, I cant imagine what awesome fun trying to find people in your fleet without fighters then assigning them then them assigning them onto the target is going to be. I would imagine it would probably only take a couple of hours. Well I suppose you can still haul stuff with carriers, although we have rorq's now... Perhaps for repping POS's then ? Im not entirely sure that was the intention of carriers. -----------------------------------
Icome4u Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L	Posted - 2007.10.22 23:55:00 - [304] Originally by: Benn Helmsman Edited by: Benn Helmsman on 22/10/2007 23:30:40 It is pretty funny everyone is whining about that a gang can take a solo carrier appart. THAT IS NOT THE POINT! The point is, there is no way to take a 50+ carrier fleet apart. It is just impossible thx to remote repping and the technical limitation of how many ships you can field. I say, carriers can keep their fighters all for themself, if they would have to enter a "siege" mode like dreads to deploy them. So they cant get remote repped while deploying fighters. That would solve the blobbing pretty much. Add: and the stupid damp issue Idiot. 50 man BS fleet is just as 'hardcore' as a 50 man carrier fleet. Heck its cheaper so for the price of it just bring 250 man BS fleet. BTW to kill that ghost 50 man carrier fleet bring 30 Dreads. Ever tried to tank 30 dreads in seige mode? It's impossible. You noobs are just whining because you are scared that the big guys will show up to fight you and you don't have the skill/isk/numbers to fight back. WELL GUESS WHAT! SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST! Can't cut it out? MOVE OUT OF THE WAY.
Sorum Daemoth Insidious Existence Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.10.23 00:20:00 - [305] if i met zulupark in person i would punch him in the face, no joke. *You just got WTF EXIT ganked!*
ViperVenom Labteck Corporation LTD. Libertas Fidelitas	Posted - 2007.10.23 00:28:00 - [306] Originally by: Icome4u Originally by: Benn Helmsman Edited by: Benn Helmsman on 22/10/2007 23:30:40 It is pretty funny everyone is whining about that a gang can take a solo carrier appart. THAT IS NOT THE POINT! The point is, there is no way to take a 50+ carrier fleet apart. It is just impossible thx to remote repping and the technical limitation of how many ships you can field. I say, carriers can keep their fighters all for themself, if they would have to enter a "siege" mode like dreads to deploy them. So they cant get remote repped while deploying fighters. That would solve the blobbing pretty much. Add: and the stupid damp issue Idiot. 50 man BS fleet is just as 'hardcore' as a 50 man carrier fleet. Heck its cheaper so for the price of it just bring 250 man BS fleet. BTW to kill that ghost 50 man carrier fleet bring 30 Dreads. Ever tried to tank 30 dreads in seige mode? It's impossible. You noobs are just whining because you are scared that the big guys will show up to fight you and you don't have the skill/isk/numbers to fight back. WELL GUESS WHAT! SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST! Can't cut it out? MOVE OUT OF THE WAY. Im on board. this is a bad bad bad idea. So how may skills kinda go out the window? a DCU Drone Control Unit is now worth less. Let me see here Drone interface Lv 5 Wasted 3 DCU on my Carrier wasted Thanks CCP. Every time they fools with carriers it fails look at Triage mod. And where can i get that Sig. Carrier 07? I want it!! Boo CCP!!!!
Xilimyth Derlin OldBastardsPub SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.23 00:29:00 - [307] Originally by: ViperVenom Originally by: Icome4u Originally by: Benn Helmsman Edited by: Benn Helmsman on 22/10/2007 23:30:40 It is pretty funny everyone is whining about that a gang can take a solo carrier appart. THAT IS NOT THE POINT! The point is, there is no way to take a 50+ carrier fleet apart. It is just impossible thx to remote repping and the technical limitation of how many ships you can field. I say, carriers can keep their fighters all for themself, if they would have to enter a "siege" mode like dreads to deploy them. So they cant get remote repped while deploying fighters. That would solve the blobbing pretty much. Add: and the stupid damp issue Idiot. 50 man BS fleet is just as 'hardcore' as a 50 man carrier fleet. Heck its cheaper so for the price of it just bring 250 man BS fleet. BTW to kill that ghost 50 man carrier fleet bring 30 Dreads. Ever tried to tank 30 dreads in seige mode? It's impossible. You noobs are just whining because you are scared that the big guys will show up to fight you and you don't have the skill/isk/numbers to fight back. WELL GUESS WHAT! SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST! Can't cut it out? MOVE OUT OF THE WAY. Im on board. this is a bad bad bad idea. So how may skills kinda go out the window? a DCU Drone Control Unit is now worth less. Let me see here Drone interface Lv 5 Wasted 3 DCU on my Carrier wasted Thanks CCP. Every time they fools with carriers it fails look at Triage mod. And where can i get that Sig. Carrier 07? I want it!! Just paste "http://img250.imageshack.us/img250/1462/anticarriernerfsigdw5.jpg" into your signature line using the image tool on your forum settings ^^
Captain Bringdown Minmatar Eve University Ivy League	Posted - 2007.10.23 00:31:00 - [308] Id say.. make triage mode add +5 fighters in control of carrier/mom along with these changes, would make the triage mod actually beneficial :D
Benn Helmsman Caldari Dark Prophecy Inc.	Posted - 2007.10.23 00:48:00 - [309] Originally by: Icome4u Originally by: Benn Helmsman Edited by: Benn Helmsman on 22/10/2007 23:30:40 It is pretty funny everyone is whining about that a gang can take a solo carrier appart. THAT IS NOT THE POINT! The point is, there is no way to take a 50+ carrier fleet apart. It is just impossible thx to remote repping and the technical limitation of how many ships you can field. I say, carriers can keep their fighters all for themself, if they would have to enter a "siege" mode like dreads to deploy them. So they cant get remote repped while deploying fighters. That would solve the blobbing pretty much. Add: and the stupid damp issue Idiot. 50 man BS fleet is just as 'hardcore' as a 50 man carrier fleet. Heck its cheaper so for the price of it just bring 250 man BS fleet. BTW to kill that ghost 50 man carrier fleet bring 30 Dreads. Ever tried to tank 30 dreads in seige mode? It's impossible. You noobs are just whining because you are scared that the big guys will show up to fight you and you don't have the skill/isk/numbers to fight back. WELL GUESS WHAT! SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST! Can't cut it out? MOVE OUT OF THE WAY. Wow, your arguments are really really amazing. It is impossible to kill 50 carrier remote repping the crap out of each other, and bringing 250 people? Well doesnt seem it a bit odd that you need 5 times the manpower? What if somebody fields 150 carrier? Bring 750 BS? And 30 dreads? LOL yeah sure, to deal any damage they need to go to siege mode, what will happen? Carriers will just keep remote rep each other and blow the dreads up like popcorn.
ragewind Caldari VersaTech Interstellar Ltd. SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.23 00:53:00 - [310] so after all the blogs of ccp wanting caps and super caps being used in front line combat were they are at risk you are going to make then a 1bil or 20 bil ship with defenses lover than a single battle ship. Quote: Hi, Iæm Zulupark ..... I still haven't received a nerfbat though THANK GOD no really if you worked in the UK id be giving you a P45 not a nerfbat

Icome4u Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L	Posted - 2007.10.23 01:18:00 - [311] Edited by: Icome4u on 23/10/2007 01:23:03 Originally by: Benn Helmsman Originally by: Icome4u Originally by: Benn Helmsman Edited by: Benn Helmsman on 22/10/2007 23:30:40 It is pretty funny everyone is whining about that a gang can take a solo carrier appart. THAT IS NOT THE POINT! The point is, there is no way to take a 50+ carrier fleet apart. It is just impossible thx to remote repping and the technical limitation of how many ships you can field. I say, carriers can keep their fighters all for themself, if they would have to enter a "siege" mode like dreads to deploy them. So they cant get remote repped while deploying fighters. That would solve the blobbing pretty much. Add: and the stupid damp issue Idiot. 50 man BS fleet is just as 'hardcore' as a 50 man carrier fleet. Heck its cheaper so for the price of it just bring 250 man BS fleet. BTW to kill that ghost 50 man carrier fleet bring 30 Dreads. Ever tried to tank 30 dreads in seige mode? It's impossible. You noobs are just whining because you are scared that the big guys will show up to fight you and you don't have the skill/isk/numbers to fight back. WELL GUESS WHAT! SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST! Can't cut it out? MOVE OUT OF THE WAY. Wow, your arguments are really really amazing. It is impossible to kill 50 carrier remote repping the crap out of each other, and bringing 250 people? Well doesnt seem it a bit odd that you need 5 times the manpower? What if somebody fields 150 carrier? Bring 750 BS? And 30 dreads? LOL yeah sure, to deal any damage they need to go to siege mode, what will happen? Carriers will just keep remote rep each other and blow the dreads up like popcorn. Again Idiot. Has it EVER occurred to you that maybe you can't win them all??? Man if they bring 50 carriers, 100 BS, 5 MS, a ***** Titan and who knows what else that you are against people that don't kid around? Stay dock. You can't win them all and thats what you and the other noobs are whining about. Their's nothing wrong with 50 carrier blob. They spent a long time and a lot of isk to get that blob going. If you can't beat them then to bad for you. Last time i checked a 50 man BS blob can't get beaten by 50 cruisers. Nerf BS high slots because of it? No. I agree that blobs are lame but thats how you do things. You bring more people or better ships. If anything carriers help keep the blobs down since they are more powerful than one smaller ship usually. CCP is scared that everyone will be in carriers in 1 year... well everyone is in BC and BS now... so what? Bring out bigger and better ships to handle blobs of carriers then! Don't nerf the ship, thats just idiotic. They just want to take the easy way out and don't care about **ing almost everyone off by doing that. Bad business, Bad company. Edit: It honestly start to feel like CCP want all 03 players in MS, all 04 players in carriers, all 05 playeres in BS, all 06 in BC and the noobs in cruisers and smaller ships... Well guess what, people usualy train for ships they WANT to use because its FUN. CCP answer: Make carriers and MS not fun to fly so people don't want to train for them. What about the people already in them? They get screwed? Wow thats pure BS. It's not our fault we want to train for something... isn't that the point of the freaking game? Just bring out new capital ships or something to deal with the 'Capital-Online'... Or you can take the easy solution like always and just make each capital ships ten times more expensive. Now carriers are 10 bil, dreads are 20 bil and MS are 300 bil. Pretty stupid but so is CCP's current solution.
Benn Helmsman Caldari Dark Prophecy Inc.	Posted - 2007.10.23 01:23:00 - [312] Originally by: Icome4u Originally by: Benn Helmsman Originally by: Icome4u Originally by: Benn Helmsman Edited by: Benn Helmsman on 22/10/2007 23:30:40 It is pretty funny everyone is whining about that a gang can take a solo carrier appart. THAT IS NOT THE POINT! The point is, there is no way to take a 50+ carrier fleet apart. It is just impossible thx to remote repping and the technical limitation of how many ships you can field. I say, carriers can keep their fighters all for themself, if they would have to enter a "siege" mode like dreads to deploy them. So they cant get remote repped while deploying fighters. That would solve the blobbing pretty much. Add: and the stupid damp issue Idiot. 50 man BS fleet is just as 'hardcore' as a 50 man carrier fleet. Heck its cheaper so for the price of it just bring 250 man BS fleet. BTW to kill that ghost 50 man carrier fleet bring 30 Dreads. Ever tried to tank 30 dreads in seige mode? It's impossible. You noobs are just whining because you are scared that the big guys will show up to fight you and you don't have the skill/isk/numbers to fight back. WELL GUESS WHAT! SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST! Can't cut it out? MOVE OUT OF THE WAY. Wow, your arguments are really really amazing. It is impossible to kill 50 carrier remote repping the crap out of each other, and bringing 250 people? Well doesnt seem it a bit odd that you need 5 times the manpower? What if somebody fields 150 carrier? Bring 750 BS? And 30 dreads? LOL yeah sure, to deal any damage they need to go to siege mode, what will happen? Carriers will just keep remote rep each other and blow the dreads up like popcorn. Again Idiot. Has it EVER occurred to you that maybe you can't win them all??? Man if they bring 50 carriers, 100 BS, 5 MS, a ***** Titan and who knows what else that you are against people that don't kid around? Stay dock. You can't win them all and thats what you and the other noobs are whining about. Their's nothing wrong with 50 carrier blob. They spent a long time and a lot of isk to get that blob going. If you can't beat them then to bad for you. Last time i checked a 50 man BS blob can't get beaten by 50 cruisers. Nerf BS high slots because of it? No. I agree that blobs are lame but thats how you do things. You bring more people or better ships. If anything carriers help keep the blobs down since they are more powerful than one smaller ship usually. CCP is scared that everyone will be in carriers in 1 year... well everyone is in BC and BS now... so what? Bring out bigger and better ships to handle blobs of carriers then! Don't nerf the ship, thats just idiotic. They just want to take the easy way out and don't care about **ing almost everyone off by doing that. Bad business, Bad company. Man you are so clever... i guess you have been the coolest kid in school.. oh wait i guess you are still in second grade. I guess you lack the ability to imagine the results of carrier blobs, else you would agree that it would kill EVE in no time.
Icome4u Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L	Posted - 2007.10.23 01:25:00 - [313] Originally by: Benn Helmsman Man you are so clever... i guess you have been the coolest kid in school.. oh wait i guess you are still in second grade. I guess you lack the ability to imagine the results of carrier blobs, else you would agree that it would kill EVE in no time. Man you really do like to troll heh? Just like that Val 6 month old noob on the other thread. Your posts lack any information, any experience, just a noob whining that carriers are overpowered. Well they aren't. I'm done bothering with your idiotic replies that lack everything except stupidity. Oh and i'm in college not that its any of your business.
Ewan Heaven	Posted - 2007.10.23 01:28:00 - [314] we dont want this nerf, simple, no need to argue or propose ideas, we dont want it !!
Benn Helmsman Caldari Dark Prophecy Inc.	Posted - 2007.10.23 01:39:00 - [315] Originally by: Icome4u Originally by: Benn Helmsman Man you are so clever... i guess you have been the coolest kid in school.. oh wait i guess you are still in second grade. I guess you lack the ability to imagine the results of carrier blobs, else you would agree that it would kill EVE in no time. Man you really do like to troll heh? Just like that Val 6 month old noob on the other thread. Your posts lack any information, any experience, just a noob whining that carriers are overpowered. Well they aren't. I'm done bothering with your idiotic replies that lack everything except stupidity. Oh and i'm in college not that its any of your business. You havent posted ANY kind of provable facts and putting out personal insults. If you can prove your point, lets see some calculations. But as far as i can see, you cant bring them up, first because they would prove you wrong, and second i dont believe you are capable of doing that in first place.
SiamFattiCosi GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.10.23 01:40:00 - [316] Nerf them! Just because it would make all the bobbits in this thread cry.
Plague Rexus Gallente D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.10.23 01:45:00 - [317] To be honest guys all we can hope for now is that they listen to us, just encourage your corps, alliances, friends every player you know to voice their feelings by using this sig, now we just ahev to wait and see. http://go-dl1.eve-files.com/media/0710/Anti-Carrier-Nerf-Sig%5B2%5D.jpg Thx
Benn Helmsman Caldari Dark Prophecy Inc.	Posted - 2007.10.23 01:46:00 - [318] Originally by: Plague Rexus To be honest guys all we can hope for now is that they listen to us, just encourage your corps, alliances, friends every player you know to voice their feelings by using this sig, now we just ahev to wait and see. http://go-dl1.eve-files.com/media/0710/Anti-Carrier-Nerf-Sig%5B2%5D.jpg Thx Why does it look like USA-propaganda?
Icome4u Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L	Posted - 2007.10.23 02:04:00 - [319] Originally by: Benn Helmsman Originally by: Icome4u Originally by: Benn Helmsman Man you are so clever... i guess you have been the coolest kid in school.. oh wait i guess you are still in second grade. I guess you lack the ability to imagine the results of carrier blobs, else you would agree that it would kill EVE in no time. Man you really do like to troll heh? Just like that Val 6 month old noob on the other thread. Your posts lack any information, any experience, just a noob whining that carriers are overpowered. Well they aren't. I'm done bothering with your idiotic replies that lack everything except stupidity. Oh and i'm in college not that its any of your business. You havent posted ANY kind of provable facts and putting out personal insults. If you can prove your point, lets see some calculations. But as far as i can see, you cant bring them up, first because they would prove you wrong, and second i dont believe you are capable of doing that in first place. I posted a lot more information than you have. Feel free to do the math yourself. Iv been flying carriers for a long time so i know what i'm talking about. Just as i'm sure you know a lot about the ship you specialize in.
Benn Helmsman Caldari Dark Prophecy Inc.	Posted - 2007.10.23 02:12:00 - [320] Edited by: Benn Helmsman on 23/10/2007 02:14:05 Originally by: Icome4u Originally by: Benn Helmsman Originally by: Icome4u Originally by: Benn Helmsman Man you are so clever... i guess you have been the coolest kid in school.. oh wait i guess you are still in second grade. I guess you lack the ability to imagine the results of carrier blobs, else you would agree that it would kill EVE in no time. Man you really do like to troll heh? Just like that Val 6 month old noob on the other thread. Your posts lack any information, any experience, just a noob whining that carriers are overpowered. Well they aren't. I'm done bothering with your idiotic replies that lack everything except stupidity. Oh and i'm in college not that its any of your business. You havent posted ANY kind of provable facts and putting out personal insults. If you can prove your point, lets see some calculations. But as far as i can see, you cant bring them up, first because they would prove you wrong, and second i dont believe you are capable of doing that in first place. I posted a lot more information than you have. Feel free to do the math yourself. Iv been flying carriers for a long time so i know what i'm talking about. Just as i'm sure you know a lot about the ship you specialize in. I cant see anything but blablablainsultblablabla. I made enough calculations already, and it gave me some amazing number on carrier turtletanking and dps. If you would have made your own, you could post something about it right here and prove that you arent just a little whiner who doesnt want his ship getting nerfed to a reasonable strength.

judes23 The Silent Rage M. PIRE	Posted - 2007.10.23 02:31:00 - [321] Edited by: judes23 on 23/10/2007 02:31:53 ya like, sub carriers edit hey. my sigg supports the anti-nerf on the carrier and mom right? save them, save your future
Herring Pimpology Free Trade Zone.	Posted - 2007.10.23 02:47:00 - [322] I don't fly a carrier. Thank God. This has to be one of the most illogical and lamest nerfs I've heard of for a long time. If my BS, or cruiser, or whatever gets BBQ'd by a carrier or MS, it's my fault for poor planning. If this is a lag issue, say it's a lag issue and work towards a solution like it's a lag issue. Don't feed us this BS. Damn. Please just state the real reason behind this proposed change. CCP - please stop with the nerfing and boost something already.
Shakura Fury	Posted - 2007.10.23 02:55:00 - [323] Who whacked this guy on da head? Is he crazy or sumpthing.. BAH! I can seriously say im puking my guts out. Carriers .. nerfing.. What about nerfing something else.. I could have known. First the dominix and typhoon loose their function as what they were created for with the first drone nerf. Coz thats what these ships were, now their primary function cant be due to a nerf. And now.. Carriers and Motherships have to undergo a simular nerf but not simular. I am really very disappointed. I think ill just sell my carrier before its price drops rapidly after this nerf. Not every carrier pilot flies in gangs with it, nerfing its use to just 5 controllable drones it totally unacceptable. We'll be ganked and whooped in 0.2 seconds instead of having the right to defend ourselves. I think this whole idea is a bunch of crock. I might even loose the last bit of interest I got in this game. I protest.. I am seriously against this nerf.. its not an improvement and u cant compare what u see from only a test server result or fleet op result with what endurance solo carrier pilots have to endure. Carriers and Motherships. well the name says it all. They carry stuff, and were made to be support with drones. Keep their honor intact, I bet im not the only one who thinks about this. And like said.. not every carrier pilot kills a battleship in 0.2 seconds, ive seen it the other way around.
Benn Helmsman Caldari Dark Prophecy Inc.	Posted - 2007.10.23 02:57:00 - [324] Just to give you a clue, 50 carrier can turtletank 150k dps. While they put out over 50k dps on their own. Thats the problem, if you can show a better solution than making carriers have to go to a non remote repairable siege mode for 10 minutes in order to deploy their fighters, here is the place to put it in.
Valandril Caldari Resurrection R i s e	Posted - 2007.10.23 03:04:00 - [325] Edited by: Valandril on 23/10/2007 03:05:39 Originally by: Benn Helmsman I'm quickfit player, i even fail at it because i don't see the cap it will cost too tank that 150k dps, nor the fact that its possible only in theory. Not meaning that we should be able to counter you 100bil worth of ships with just spamming t1 frigs and cruisers. I know i should stop posting, but my qfit skill > your playing experience. Fixed --- Battlecarriers - lets move carriers to the front line !
FireFox McProwler Caldari Dirty Deeds Corp. Axiom Empire	Posted - 2007.10.23 03:06:00 - [326] The older guys get shafted left n right. Sorry boys us people who play the game for more then 3 years need to lower ourself so the 3 month olds do not cry so much. Maby this game is going the same road of swg. We shall see. AXE is looking for members!! Clicky for info.
Gyle Caldari Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.	Posted - 2007.10.23 03:10:00 - [327] sign my petition you anti-nerfers!!! The best petition in the world
Karyuudo Tydraad Caldari Whiskey Pete's Drycleaning Services	Posted - 2007.10.23 03:11:00 - [328] You guys make it sound as if we're being limited to 5 fighters. We're not. Just assign them before the battle. Your full complement of fighters are still present on the battlefield, and little changes if you're using the ship in any gang where you have 2 - 3 other pilots for every Carrier or Mothership. 90% of the posts in here are completely irrational. At least attempt to support your panicked cries to defend massive carrier blobs with some semblance of logic.
Benn Helmsman Caldari Dark Prophecy Inc.	Posted - 2007.10.23 03:16:00 - [329] Originally by: Valandril Edited by: Valandril on 23/10/2007 03:07:27 Edited by: Valandril on 23/10/2007 03:05:39 Originally by: Benn Helmsman I'm quickfit player, i even fail at it because i don't see the cap it will cost too tank that 150k dps, nor the fact that its possible only in theory. Not meaning that we should be able to counter you 100bil worth of ships and 900m sp with just spamming t1 frigs and cruisers. I know i should stop posting, but my qfit skill > your playing experience. Fixed Changing quotes of other people is a violation of forum rules, delete or edit it plz before a mod has to do it.
Valandril Caldari Resurrection R i s e	Posted - 2007.10.23 03:21:00 - [330] Originally by: Benn Helmsman Originally by: Valandril Edited by: Valandril on 23/10/2007 03:07:27 Edited by: Valandril on 23/10/2007 03:05:39 Originally by: Benn Helmsman I'm quickfit player, i even fail at it because i don't see the cap it will cost too tank that 150k dps, nor the fact that its possible only in theory. Not meaning that we should be able to counter you 100bil worth of ships and 900m sp with just spamming t1 frigs and cruisers. I know i should stop posting, but my qfit skill > your playing experience. Fixed And when i lack arguments i will cry to moderators about non existing rule Fixed again --- Battlecarriers - lets move carriers to the front line !

Benn Helmsman Caldari Dark Prophecy Inc.	Posted - 2007.10.23 03:25:00 - [331] Originally by: Valandril Originally by: Benn Helmsman Originally by: Valandril Edited by: Valandril on 23/10/2007 03:07:27 Edited by: Valandril on 23/10/2007 03:05:39 Originally by: Benn Helmsman I'm quickfit player, i even fail at it because i don't see the cap it will cost too tank that 150k dps, nor the fact that its possible only in theory. Not meaning that we should be able to counter you 100bil worth of ships and 900m sp with just spamming t1 frigs and cruisers. I know i should stop posting, but my qfit skill > your playing experience. Fixed And when i lack arguments i will cry to moderators about non existing rule Fixed again Impersonating another forum user, moderator, volunteer, administrator or CCP employee is strictly prohibited. You are expressly forbidden from impersonating anyone else, including those named above, on the forum or in the game, even in jest. This may be grounds for permanent loss of your Eve account. You are posting somthing in my name i never said, that impersonating.
Kucs Macuvue Caldari	Posted - 2007.10.23 03:30:00 - [332] "Post constructivly" It seems you were expecting passionate replies. At least your not a total ******, as first indicated by your ideas. If this goes through, I'll try flying around in the setup I paid $80 in monthly fees to train. Countless hours of mind numbing boredom to afford. And if it gets killed by a 3 week old and his 15 month old buddy in rat fitted cruisers you and CCP can suck a fat one as far as I'm concerned.
Kir Laeda SolaR KillerS	Posted - 2007.10.23 03:32:00 - [333] OMG CCP overpowered!!! NERF CCP
Lazarus Telraven Caldari Dragons Of Redemption Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.10.23 03:34:00 - [334] Replying to all of your "cap blobs renders all other ships useless," CCP already fixed the cap blob, its called a System Cyno Jammer, forcing you to get a nice BS fleet and go attack their DeathStar POS before you can jump your cynos in, and honestly a support fleet can melt a carrier without any trouble Fighters + web = DEAD -Lazarus-
Galaxyes Omega Enterprises Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2007.10.23 03:36:00 - [335] i submit a new mod / balance.... nerf empire.... remove empire from the eve-verse, no more secure space... everything is 0.0 that should make it more interesting or at least make jita 0.0 so people can use their doomsdays there plz...
Niffetin Gallente CONsordium Infinate	Posted - 2007.10.23 03:40:00 - [336] Originally by: Lazarus Telraven Replying to all of your "cap blobs renders all other ships useless," CCP already fixed the cap blob, its called a System Cyno Jammer, forcing you to get a nice BS fleet and go attack their DeathStar POS before you can jump your cynos in, and honestly a support fleet can melt a carrier without any trouble Fighters + web = DEAD What about lowsec? What about people who drop 2-3 Carriers in lowsec on just a Battlecruiser? (Trust me, these aint rare..) What if the victim/his corp isnt strong enough to do anything about it? How lame is that? Frickin Capital-Ships-Online... --- [WTS] Void L / Armageddon / Myrmidon / Antimatter XL / Mobile Large Warp Disruptor I
Addison Caine	Posted - 2007.10.23 03:43:00 - [337] Originally by: Lazarus Telraven Replying to all of your "cap blobs renders all other ships useless," CCP already fixed the cap blob, its called a System Cyno Jammer, forcing you to get a nice BS fleet and go attack their DeathStar POS before you can jump your cynos in, and honestly a support fleet can melt a carrier without any trouble Fighters + web = DEAD Yeah, a support fleet will melt a carrier fine. It's once you start blobbing the carriers together they get ridiculous. CCP never removed the cap blob, they just delayed its arrival.
Valandril Caldari Resurrection R i s e	Posted - 2007.10.23 03:43:00 - [338] Edited by: Valandril on 23/10/2007 03:46:25 Edited by: Valandril on 23/10/2007 03:45:36 Originally by: Niffetin Originally by: Lazarus Telraven Replying to all of your "cap blobs renders all other ships useless," CCP already fixed the cap blob, its called a System Cyno Jammer, forcing you to get a nice BS fleet and go attack their DeathStar POS before you can jump your cynos in, and honestly a support fleet can melt a carrier without any trouble Fighters + web = DEAD What about lowsec? What about people who drop 2-3 Carriers in lowsec on just a Battlecruiser? (Trust me, these aint rare..) What if the victim/his corp isnt strong enough to do anything about it? How lame is that? Frickin Capital-Ships-Online... What if we drop 3 battleships on your cruiser in lowsec ? What if the victim/his corp isn't stron enought to do anything about it? How lame is that ? Fricking I'm-stronger-i-will-kill-you-Online... Quote: Yeah, a support fleet will melt a carrier fine. It's once you start blobbing the carriers together they get ridiculous. CCP never removed the cap blob, they just delayed its arrival. To melt other caps, u will have to field caps too, or very big amoutn of dps (ie. with short range battleships, and for ONLY CAPS fleet, they will be easy to be used vs caps), or a lot of ewar, or bump them away of each other (which is not hard, remote repping got only 45k range), or just focus on killing they fighters and then finish carriers when they are defense less. God so many possibilities, but they share one thing, they require thinking. --- Battlecarriers - lets move carriers to the front line !
Benn Helmsman Caldari Dark Prophecy Inc.	Posted - 2007.10.23 03:48:00 - [339] Originally by: Valandril ... God so many possibilities, but they share one thing, they require thinking. Compared to blob carrier on single ships
Princess Dave Gallente Priory Of The Lemon	Posted - 2007.10.23 03:52:00 - [340] I want to adress the people who are under the ilusion that carriers are uber front line assult ships. so im gona brake it down. 5 fighters is = to a decen raven pilot. so 15 fighters u got 3 bs firepower (around). yes thats alot of firepower and yes it can take down almost any ship solo. Now to make u feel stupid. it takes 2 people to jamm a carrier. when a carrier cant target it cant do ANYTHING besides lauch regular dronz (they will all lock diffrent targets and shoot someone for pointless amounts of damage). so lets say u got the carrier jammed and scramed. instead of shooting the uber tank ship kill its fighters. after u killed 10 of them u basicly nutured it. and i can kill a fighter in 3 salvos of my Nighthawk (other char). carriers are far from overpowered. 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. this nerf is stupid and pointless. i have 20 mill sp in carriers and ill leave with my 5 accounts if this is deployed. heard many others claiming the same. so devs its really down to simple economics. U neft carriers/moms u looz subscribers (like never before) u have a inelastic demand curve atm dont screw it up

Trent Nichols Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.23 03:55:00 - [341] I don't really have anything more add about just how horrid this nerf is so I will move to another issue. CCP; you need to get this guy off of your Design team now. His first idea, his big debut, and this is what he comes up with? I hate to think of the damage he will do to the game if he stays.
Jullian Brenan	Posted - 2007.10.23 03:58:00 - [342] lol nerfing carriers is bullcrap. yes they jump 3 carreirs in on ya in low sec. but u knwo what ive seen 3 caps jump in and get killed by a 14 man gang. yes all 3 carries killed. got it on fraps 2. good pvp. what u rly need to nerf is nano ships. they offer alot more of a porblem. at least u can do damage to a carrier. (when a bs can fly circles around a nighthawk and take relitivly no damage, not THAT is bullcrap. carriers shuld be keeped the same. no ship should rely on others to field its firepower.
Delvainar GoonFleet	Posted - 2007.10.23 03:59:00 - [343] I agree with (what I think is) the sentiment behind this nerf, but this is a pretty un-user friendly way to go about it. I miss the days when fleets would actually engage each other, but so far (in my time playing) that's only happened for the brief time between when titans were nerfed (ending the days when fleets wouldn't fight because one would just get DD'd) and when people realized that fighter swarms were the next best thing. And I don't see how anyone could really call this some "goon whine," we have just as big of a cap fleet as bob these days. And what happens? Well, we almost got a fleet fight in (former) Rise space awhile back, but what happened instead was BoB jumped into GHZ, and we hung out in P8 and neither of us were willing to fight each other. I think it's solely because of fighters. Titans at least offer the opportunity to come back and try to kill it. And that's no fun, even when we are winning :( Frankly, this suggested change just makes things difficult without really fixing anything in the end. Perhaps you guys (devs) should try keeping your two goals separate. Find one way to make carriers and motherships better support tools, and find a way to make them less pwnmobiles. A pretty cool idea off the top of my head for the former would be the ability to actually dock other players in a carrier/mothership and jump them around. For the latter, well, fighter nerf ideas are a dime a dozen.
Death's Crusader	Posted - 2007.10.23 04:01:00 - [344] Quote: I don't really have anything more add about just how horrid this nerf is so I will move to another issue. CCP; you need to get this guy off of your Design team now. His first idea, his big debut, and this is what he comes up with? I hate to think of the damage he will do to the game if he stays. /agree. know alot of people that will leave eve for another game if this happends. since i invested in cap bpos id be pritty ****ed 2. whos gona want to buy thantos bpc after this. sigh. ur screwing up more then just pvp
Gyle Caldari Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.	Posted - 2007.10.23 04:22:00 - [345] EVERYONE SIGN THIS PETITION TO STOP THIS NERF!!!
Ewan Heaven	Posted - 2007.10.23 04:37:00 - [346] Originally by: Death's Crusader Quote: I don't really have anything more add about just how horrid this nerf is so I will move to another issue. CCP; you need to get this guy off of your Design team now. His first idea, his big debut, and this is what he comes up with? I hate to think of the damage he will do to the game if he stays. /agree. know alot of people that will leave eve for another game if this happends. since i invested in cap bpos id be pritty **ed 2. whos gona want to buy thantos bpc after this. sigh. ur screwing up more then just pvp /signed SAVE carrier and Moms**
Coolgamer Minmatar Res Publica R i s e	Posted - 2007.10.23 04:43:00 - [347] Originally by: Ewan Heaven Originally by: Death's Crusader Quote: I don't really have anything more add about just how horrid this nerf is so I will move to another issue. CCP; you need to get this guy off of your Design team now. His first idea, his big debut, and this is what he comes up with? I hate to think of the damage he will do to the game if he stays. /agree. know alot of people that will leave eve for another game if this happends. since i invested in cap bpos id be pritty **ed 2. whos gona want to buy thantos bpc after this. sigh. ur screwing up more then just pvp /signed /and re-signed! SAVE carrier and Moms**
Durgan Kael Gallente Disillusioned Perfection Syndicate	Posted - 2007.10.23 04:51:00 - [348] Edited by: Durgan Kael on 23/10/2007 04:52:27 I don't fly a carrier, but this has got to be one of the STUPIDEST things i've heard of... 1bil+ ships should be able to kill 100mil isk ships... Carriers already aren't solo pwn mobiles, and neither are MS's (they normally have to have atleast 1 person to cyno them in/tackle). PLS! don't do this... Forgot to mention... Carriers using large amounts of rep drones also can help people tank... So don't nerf the normal drones on carriers either.
Mighty Baz HUSARIA Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.23 05:35:00 - [349] CCP, stop it ______________________________________________
zaqq	Posted - 2007.10.23 06:21:00 - [350] shove this idea up yer... you know how long it takes to get to be in this position skillwise ? you know how hard it is being a small corp trying to get a foothold in 0.0 ? the price of the damn fighters leave the damn game alone, go find summin else to nerf

SaveCarrierAnd Moms	Posted - 2007.10.23 07:25:00 - [351] Remember to sign the petition, More SIGS needed !! check out there : http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=619601 --- Say NO! Nerf Petition
holymoly84	Posted - 2007.10.23 07:28:00 - [352] I don't see what the point is. When I think of carrier it deploys more drones that any other ship, as it should be, as the point of a carrier is to carry something. This is dumb. I'll probably quit the game if they do this. I feel rather annoyed that I spent close to 2b on my carrier + skills and close to 7 or so months worth of training and work to get enough money to fly a domi. I can't stand for an organization that will that makes poor judgment calls that will fundamentally change the game. gg!
Damned Force	Posted - 2007.10.23 07:34:00 - [353] Originally by: Benn Helmsman Originally by: Icome4u Originally by: Benn Helmsman Edited by: Benn Helmsman on 22/10/2007 23:30:40 It is pretty funny everyone is whining about that a gang can take a solo carrier appart. THAT IS NOT THE POINT! The point is, there is no way to take a 50+ carrier fleet apart. It is just impossible thx to remote repping and the technical limitation of how many ships you can field. I say, carriers can keep their fighters all for themself, if they would have to enter a "siege" mode like dreads to deploy them. So they cant get remote repped while deploying fighters. That would solve the blobbing pretty much. Add: and the stupid damp issue Idiot. 50 man BS fleet is just as 'hardcore' as a 50 man carrier fleet. Heck its cheaper so for the price of it just bring 250 man BS fleet. BTW to kill that ghost 50 man carrier fleet bring 30 Dreads. Ever tried to tank 30 dreads in seige mode? It's impossible. You noobs are just whining because you are scared that the big guys will show up to fight you and you don't have the skill/isk/numbers to fight back. WELL GUESS WHAT! SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST! Can't cut it out? MOVE OUT OF THE WAY. Wow, your arguments are really really amazing. It is impossible to kill 50 carrier remote repping the crap out of each other, and bringing 250 people? Well doesnt seem it a bit odd that you need 5 times the manpower? What if somebody fields 150 carrier? Bring 750 BS? And 30 dreads? LOL yeah sure, to deal any damage they need to go to siege mode, what will happen? Carriers will just keep remote rep each other and blow the dreads up like popcorn. Oh, u NOOB, thats the game. u cant kill a BS in a frig, so is a BS overpowered? no, u bring 10 frigs and kill the BS. The same is by carriers. if u cant kill them alone u bring more peoples. Or u heard already about EW? Damp them, JAM them and they cant remote rep....... loosers like u make this game to wow slowly
Gontard Minmatar E-Truth	Posted - 2007.10.23 07:42:00 - [354] Buff Carriers, nerf Warlock !!!1!!!111!!!!
TheExecuter STK Scientific Black-Out	Posted - 2007.10.23 07:54:00 - [355] Edited by: TheExecuter on 23/10/2007 07:56:06 erm u r bored ? u want to do something ? " oh, lets nerf carriers" " nerf moms also? " " yeah, why not , we r the gods of the game " ... one word to CCP : STUIPED idea
Central Scrutinizer RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.23 08:19:00 - [356] Worst idea ever. If anything, assigning fighters should be removed completely to prevent no-risk shuttlebombing. This change is even less properly thought out than all the other crap you've been changing lately. And that's pretty ******* bad.
k1Lz FinFleet Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.10.23 08:38:00 - [357] Edited by: k1Lz on 23/10/2007 08:41:57 I really hope that this carrier NERF it was just and idea, because if you really are going to too do this pls I want my 1Bil ISK back and all the time I spend in training carrier and his secondary skills convert in something else logistic ships, covert doesnÆt matter. With all do respect CCP we are your customers and no matter how good your intentions are, if the levels of frustration create by your ôchangesö is too high we can leave very easy. I pay this game to have fun and feel good, if now you tell me that all the time I spent and invest in your game in the last 8 months it was for a BIG expensive logistic ship sorry I donÆt like it, no matter how good you guys telling me it is. I understand new players I really do, I play this game from 110000 SP when other players destroy me in 2sec with BSs kitted full tech II and I was in a ***** black bird and I never scream ôCCP nerf BSö. Zulupark: ôà.Remember that this is still just an idea and we want your feedback on this, so please, post constructively and you just might make a difference in the (EVE) universe.ö Starting from this I invite any dev to jump in a carrier and try to see how easy is to tank 5 fighters in a BS with decent tank. Carriers and motherships have never been ôdirect nber deathbringerö in the most heavy fleet fights carriers and momys have depended on support for tackling, yes you get with your BS in my web, scrambler range you are dead but this is normal the same thing is happening in BS vs cruiser, cruiser vs frigs etc. I really want to see how and why CCP get the conclusion that carriers and MS are overpower or not function like they intend to, personally I want one dev to step up and say starting from this INFO we reach this conclusion, because this kind of ôwe devs think is wrong, we change itö is totally bull** at least in this case
Djagoan Caldari Silver Star Federation R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.10.23 08:46:00 - [358] DONT FIX IT, WHEN ITS NOT BROKEN, and what everyone else here said is true.. no need to nerf the cap ships.. we have been training for these skills forever.. and than u will take that away from us hell no.. /signed
MegaLotto	Posted - 2007.10.23 08:51:00 - [359] /sighn dum idea i mean come on
Nobloodx	Posted - 2007.10.23 09:01:00 - [360] "I really want to see how and why CCP get the conclusion that carriers and MS are overpower or not function like they intend to, personally I want one dev to step up and say starting from this INFO we reach this conclusion, because this kind of ôwe devs think is wrong, we change itö is totally bull**** at least in this case" by k1Lz FinFleet Band of Brothers He may be bob, but when ur right, ur right carriers are ment to have lots of tiny ships that go and attack stuff. and wtf do u do when get jumped on a station. attack a bs with 5 fighters. ROFL. any half awake bs pilot can tank 5 fighters. its a joke. u turned something that was pirfect into a wast of isk. not to mention years of training and under devotion for a single ship.

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 lilæ 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 donÆt 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.----

Kiyoshi Aphelion The League of Shadows Dogs of War.	Posted - 2007.10.23 17:07:00 - [391] If this happens I'm so quitting Eve. I didn't spend almost a year and a half training to fly a mom and get screwed like this.
Cynthia Lynn	Posted - 2007.10.23 17:46:00 - [392] If you do this all my work on skills for the carrier and all my money to buy it, you'll turn it into nothing more than a wimpy hauler. This is by far the most stupid, thoughtless, and just plain ******** idea I've seen you "brains" at CCP come up with so far. This may be the straw that broke this camel's back I'll tell you, I can't stand they way you "balance" the game, opps I mean RUIN the game. You're ruiners. CCP with your nerfs you're the worst griefers in the game.
marakor Gallente Anti Lag Forum Smackers	Posted - 2007.10.23 18:50:00 - [393] Why not leave em alone and build a capital hauler cos thats how carriers seem to be going ffs. The opinions that i give are the opinions of my corp although my alts opinions may differ as this
Mundem Pashdale Serenity Prime Praesidium Libertatis	Posted - 2007.10.23 19:20:00 - [394] Edited by: Mundem Pashdale on 23/10/2007 19:21:54 I've played this game for a while; I've flwn my Thantos for a while. I HATE fighters. They're a great way to loose loads of ISK. Fighters need fixing, as do carriers. NOT nerfing. Logistics platform? Great. I can live with that. But that's now what you sold them as when they where first released and you've just made many of us waste a year or so of skill trianing for a glorfied logistics ship that's a great big liability on the battle field. For the love of sanity, THINK AGAIN! Awsume sig. hope you don't mind I copied it!
IC Wiener	Posted - 2007.10.23 19:50:00 - [395] Edited by: IC Wiener on 23/10/2007 19:52:07 Edited by: IC Wiener on 23/10/2007 19:51:44 i just have the picture of the funny flash video in my head where you could see how apocs got nerved and instead of guns it had a stick and bananas. tbh that idea just goes into the wrong direction. like often said. with this price this skill requirements and all that stuff that you need to produce one it should be somehow a bit better than the normal t1 junk. and compared to its size ect it should be able to kill a BS to defend itself. just try it out. a carrier with 5 fighter drones cant in any way defend itself against a couple of good skilled BS pilots which give each other armor rep or shield when they get the 5 fighters attacking them. and with a couple i dont mean the common 50man gang.. i mean like under 10. edit: if you want to nerf carrier and motherships "improve" the great fighter/drone AI a bit more and fighters will killing each other... problem solved...
Gar Ddhen Gallente Mining Bytes Inc. D-L	Posted - 2007.10.23 20:41:00 - [396] I am for this in a way... but before something like this is implemented then some considerations to have to be taken into account, and some problems fixed... and they really do need to be fixed either before or at the same time you implement such a change. First is lag, this really does have to go, it is hard enough to do anything in a lagfest, but to ask Carrier pilots to assign and reassign fighters as well as control their own and lay down their logistical support with current lag is a bit much. Second is the drone interface panel and gang communication, most guys in PvP will be on voice coms of some sort, but the carrier pilot still needs to find the recipient of assigned drones in order to do the assigning. Not easy during a fight when you have to scroll through chat or gang window. Maybe some sort of broadcast would help? The drone interface and AI is, to be blunt, crap, so that needs sorting out, sooner rather than later. The other point some of these folks have mentioned is that they need some way of automatically recalling their fighters if the assigned pilot is dropped,logs off, warps out, jumps or is podded. The point is, if you are going to make a carrier pilots life more complex you have to give him or her the tools in which to manage that increased complexity. Logistics modules, I took a Thanatos out on Armageddon day... and to be honest the range and cap use of the various capital logistics modules shocked me. If you want these ships to be fleet support ships you have to address several problems here. First targetting, its too slow unless you are in Triage... which as far as I know is broken as Ewar still works (correct me if I am wrong here). Lock time is critical in a logistics role as you often have to switch target several times in a fight, and even with multitasking at 3 or 4 chances are you will have to drop targets to switch to your new primary support, or you get hit by a jam cycle. Related to this is the problem that carriers can only maintain 6 locks, definately not enough for a ship CCP envisages in a logistics role. It is also unrealistic to expect carriers to enter triage every time they entered a fight even if triage mode worked as intended as often a certain degree of mobility is required. Second, cap use is way too high for the logistics modules, triage doesnt really address it either, while there is a good cap reduction there is also a massive reduction in cycle time which in essence brings cap use right back up. These ships need some kind of bonus to the amount of cap they are using so they can at least run 2 or 3 of those capital logistics mods for a decent amount of time and not have to fill tanking slots with cap rechargers or cap power relays. Maybe a level based drop like that of the logistics ships? Third... range! Sorry... CCP want these as Heal your gang mates ships? Yet my Oneiros can do the job with no cap issues at TWICE the range? Buff the range, 150 km for capital logistics modules, possibly 200, make them worth taking out in that role. At least the cycle time of the capital logistics mods are fine :) I am of two minds about how the fighter thing is, I think there are pluses and minuses to this 'nerf'. I think the best way to solve it personally is to ensure that fighters use the bonus of their owner not their controller, that is to say they fight with the bonuses of the carrier pilot who owns them, not those of the pilot to whom they are assigned. I would also like to see more fighter classes... ECM, Logistics, etc, there is more than one way of defending your ship than just using pure DPS. If the purpose of this is really to nerf Moms in low sec and nothing else, then I am afraid I agree with the 0.0 only option applied to Supercaps.
Darahk J'olonar Gallente Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.10.23 20:56:00 - [397] Edited by: Darahk J''olonar on 23/10/2007 20:57:39 Originally by: Niffetin Originally by: Lazarus Telraven Replying to all of your "cap blobs renders all other ships useless," CCP already fixed the cap blob, its called a System Cyno Jammer, forcing you to get a nice BS fleet and go attack their DeathStar POS before you can jump your cynos in, and honestly a support fleet can melt a carrier without any trouble Fighters + web = DEAD What about lowsec? What about people who drop 2-3 Carriers in lowsec on just a Battlecruiser? (Trust me, these aint rare..) What if the victim/his corp isnt strong enough to do anything about it? How lame is that? Frickin Capital-Ships-Online... What about it? YOU DIE! Get used to it. Space is a cold hard place and if you're in the wrong place at the wrong time, oh well.
Julius Rigel	Posted - 2007.10.23 21:23:00 - [398] Pffh, we should nerf titans a bit more, every time I run into one in my Velator I just know I won't stand a chance. I mean, come on, give us new players a chance here, I mean, it took a whole lot of effort on my part to get those inital 800k skillpoints! So why should someone who has merely been playing for two years be able to oneshot me just because they've put a little more time and effort and money and not to mention effort into getting their little Avatar?
Gallen Cross Gallente The Holy Hand Grenades of Antioch	Posted - 2007.10.23 21:32:00 - [399] OMG... if this ever goes through ill just quit. ________________________________________________ I am not smart enough to make a sig, nor do I care... Why am I even putting this here?
Djbugs	Posted - 2007.10.23 21:37:00 - [400] If this ever happend i am sooooo quiting the game it will just destroy the whole point in having a carrier that is just bs all of my friends and corp m8s in eve have said the same thing

Rassad	Posted - 2007.10.23 21:45:00 - [401] If CCP is serious. They should allso drop the price of Fighters to 10mill. And Drop Carrier price to 600mill Mothership to 1bill
Alexiares	Posted - 2007.10.23 22:04:00 - [402] tbh reducing the amount of fighters away from a carrier is like chopping a males "special parts" away, it wouldnt be able to make love to other carriers or motherships, and that will just kill the carrier population..........not to mention i wont want a carrier if i cant drop 14 fighters
AirWalker Amarr Galactic Response Team	Posted - 2007.10.23 22:13:00 - [403] Edited by: AirWalker on 23/10/2007 22:13:49 Originally by: Alexiares tbh reducing the amount of fighters away from a carrier is like chopping a males "special parts" away, it wouldnt be able to make love to other carriers or motherships, and that will just kill the carrier population..........not to mention i wont want a carrier if i cant drop 14 fighters alex you're making cutting you down too easy its sad and carriers need real lovin....and no glovin
Secure Container	Posted - 2007.10.23 22:24:00 - [404] it seems that they want carriers & moms to be sitting in pos force field & assigning fighters... but i seem to remember ccp refering to ppl using these stragys for gang bonuses on the titan.. something about "if they dont want to risk there assests like real men" vid
Anjoulina	Posted - 2007.10.23 22:28:00 - [405] Carriers and other capitals are tech 1. They SHOULD be sucky. 6 months from now ccp will release tech2 capitals... basically what capitals are right now before the nerf. Should extend players' subscriptions eh?
Mundem Pashdale Serenity Prime Praesidium Libertatis	Posted - 2007.10.23 22:36:00 - [406] Gar Ddhen, I recon you realy said it. If they want to make this change, which in SOME ways is ALMOST sensible, they need to fix some issues first, so people are happy with the change. Forcing people to waste SPs and then use semi-broken systems instead is not good for the community
Lilan Kahn Amarr The Littlest Hobos Insurgency	Posted - 2007.10.23 22:36:00 - [407] Originally by: Anjoulina Carriers and other capitals are tech 1. They SHOULD be sucky. quote] You mom. I am just as construktive as you!
Kumq uat Gallente Round Table Enterprises Drunken N Disorderly	Posted - 2007.10.23 23:12:00 - [408] This is what I hope happened. Zul: Hey guys! man, I am so excited to get started on the game developing. This is awesome! Dev: Yeeeeeah. Hey, we need you to do something. We got this idea and we figure you can introduce yourself and post about it in the forums. Zul: Sure guys! Whatever you want! Dev: That's great. Always glad to see happy co workers. Allright, now here is what we want... Dev2: (Snickers) Dev: Go on there, post your intro, and also post about this change we are going to make to carriers and motherships. Zul: (Reads) Ummm, are you sure... Dev: You do want to be on the dev team right? Zul: Of course! Dev: Then suck it up, get on there, and make the post. Zul: Right, allright, thanks guys. (Goes off to make post) Dev2: OMG! What a newb! Dev: Can't believe he actually fell for that. (Devs then take out a fifth of vodka and a blunt) www.eve-pirate.com author and goat molestor.
Galaxyes Omega Enterprises Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2007.10.23 23:21:00 - [409] i still find it amusing that people cry about how they die in 0.0 and low sec.... did you forget the sign the first time you jumped into low sec and 0.0? oh gno its dangerous..... you may die here.... simple as that... motherships should not be able to be killed by 2 torps btw i don't remember the idiot who said that but thats ********.... seriously if your going to nerf anything nerf lag.... there is to much lag it doesn't matter what you nerf cause you cant have a 50 vs 50 bs fleet fight without completely lagging out... or you cant have 10 caps attack a poss without lagging... forget about even engaging in a fleet fight at a poss... why cant you just fix some of your main infrastructure problems before fixing things that arnt broken
longhhhh	Posted - 2007.10.24 01:43:00 - [410] 1 x90D name:Vitokaliffe 1x30D name:jiaokkr thanks

NaRoaN	Posted - 2007.10.24 01:49:00 - [411] We had a fleet of 20 or so ships the other day , few battleships and mostly BC or Cruiser, frigs... Killed 10+ battleships and 2 carriers they warped in towards the end.. SO once again carriers are not solo machines and frankly are worthless in up close combat and usually end up dead... Hence they do not need anything done to them because they are not to powerful You want to change something?? ADD cpu to chimera And fix the fighter so they actual work right
NaRoaN	Posted - 2007.10.24 01:52:00 - [412] CCP should run for President..... Promises so much and never delivers. Vote for Pedro
Hyakuchan Earth Federation Space Force	Posted - 2007.10.24 01:52:00 - [413] Edited by: Hyakuchan on 24/10/2007 01:55:07 Originally by: Kumq uat This is what I hope happened. You keep tellin yourself that. Denial is part of the coping process.
Kumq uat Gallente Round Table Enterprises Drunken N Disorderly	Posted - 2007.10.24 02:00:00 - [414] Hey, I gotta have hope. www.eve-pirate.com author and goat molestor.
LiQuiDCooL Valiant Logistics Inc. EternalRising	Posted - 2007.10.24 02:02:00 - [415] Originally by: Crohnx http://myeve.eve-online.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=512 Originally by: zulu Hi, Iæm Zulupark and recently transferred from the Quality Assurance department to the Game Design team. IÆve been with CCP for just under two years now and donÆt plan on going anywhere. Say hello to your newest balancer (I still haven't received a nerfbat though). Iæm posting here now because the last few days weæve been looking at the way capital and supercapital ships are functioning on Tranquility, and to be honest weære a little concerned with the direction itæs taking. What we want is pretty basic: We want to make fighter wielding capital ships more reliant on their support fleet and less of a direct nber deathbringer. How are we going to do it? Well, we have an idea, and before you go ballistic remember that this is an idea and weære still working on it: We plan on changing the way fighters work, and have it so that you can still launch all the fighters you want (within limits of your ship/skills) but you can only directly control 5 of them at a time. That means that a carrier/mothership can launch 5 fighters, assign them to a gang mate, launch 5 more, assign them to another gang mate etc. etc. 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 lilæ friends in the fleet and send them forth to be the messengers of your burning fury. Remember, weære not messing with the final total amount of fighters you can launch and delegate, just the amount you can control and delegate at a time. You can of course also launch 5 fighters and make them attack a target of your own choice, if it pleases you. But wait! Thereæs more! Not only do we want to limit the amount of fighters you can launch, but also the amount of drones! Yes, we want to limit carriers and motherships just like other ships, i.e. they should only be able to field 5 regular drones at any given time. Thatæs it! No beer for you at Fanfest! Awww man you can't let me run dry. But seriously, the reason we want to implement something like this is that we feel that capital ships are being used way too much as better-than-battleships-at-killing-stuff ships, when we in fact think that they should be used more as the-ships-that-keep-other-ships-alive-and-provide-them-with-additional-firepower ships. Did that make sense? Probably not, but anyway, we hope you get the gist the direction we want to move them in and the way we see that happening. Remember that this is still just an idea and we want your feedback on this, so please, post constructively and you just might make a difference in the (EVE) universe. oh and can u erase like 60mil of my skillpoints while ure at it so those 1 week old players can stop whining and play with people that are in here 3+ years , really wtf I totally disagree with the change ccp is thinking of. this defeats their whole purpose and the reason why people send lots of isk and time training for them. the skillbook alone cost more than a dread. dreads take out carries like there a slice of butter i dont undertand why people are crying because they die all the time. they are not the ubar wtf pwn everything they require tactics like everything else. I fly a carrier and they are nice but not the uber wtf pwn everything. you should have to properly fit your fleet to take them out. they are specialized ships like everything else. and they require alot of training and skills and isk. CCP is going to have alot of vertin player very upset with these changes especally those of us that been with this game since beta including me. LiQuiDCooL Vlinc baby!
Vaughan Digital Renegades	Posted - 2007.10.24 07:57:00 - [416] nerfing carriers is simply madness - it would take the fun out of the game for me. Maybe it's time to find new interest anyway *Sod politics, Lets RIOT!!* I am 'Armourer
judes23 The Silent Rage M. PIRE	Posted - 2007.10.25 23:26:00 - [417] men and women, boys and girls, CCP is STILL going to nerf our beloved carriers and motherships! WHY? we want them they way they are. So what if a player that has lower skillpoints cant kill a carrier by it self, you know, it should be like that. its almost time to boycott the game for a while until they unnerf it (i will boycott it when they finaly make the nerf) save them, save your future
judes23 The Silent Rage M. PIRE	Posted - 2007.10.25 23:54:00 - [418] hey guys, if this nerf goes out like CCP says, i say enmass boycott the game untill CCP unnerfs the carriers and motherships, the only real complainers are noobs on trail accounts.... i believe that CCP will make the right discouson, and hopfuly it will save them thousands upon thoasands of dollors save them, save your future
judes23 The Silent Rage M. PIRE	Posted - 2007.10.25 23:55:00 - [419] hey guys, if this nerf goes out like CCP says, i say enmass boycott the game untill CCP unnerfs the carriers and motherships, the only real complainers are noobs on trail accounts.... i believe that CCP will make the right discouson, and hopfuly it will save them thousands upon thoasands of dollors save them, save your future
General Xenophon Caldari Infinite Improbability Inc Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2007.10.26 01:01:00 - [420] Edited by: General Xenophon on 26/10/2007 01:03:29 ARGH! Props to CCP for taking back their bad idea, but still not real happy about the upcoming carrier / ms nerf. By the way, you do need to refit a carrier, in case you forgot there are better fittings for carriers in certain situations. Just thought you should know before you go nerfing something else........... ...... ... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= "Now, we must all fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men." - Boondock Saints

StarFlyer59	Posted - 2007.10.26 10:25:00 - [421] Im not generaly one to post, but I think nerfing the Carriers is a BAD idea. I must admit I have been smoked by a mom sitting on a gate in 0.4 sec space in a matter of seconds, but that is part of the risk you take floating through low sec space. I do know for a fact though with tactics you can take down one of these ships without a lot of hassle, so nerfing it would actually kill some of the fun for a pilot such as myself. I enjoy looking for overpowered pirates and finding a way to destroy them. meh... maybe its just me, but nerfing the carriers could make my game play a little more dull. Further more, if you can launch 20 fighters, or drones, you should be able to send them to whatever target you want to have em pounce imho, and limiting the amount of drones period that come from a ship such as a carrier is crazy. I mean really if they send 20 drones on my battleship its my own fault for not being smart enough to have a smart bomb ready for many drones to be pouncin' my hull. Im not a carrier pilot, therfor it would be difficult to call this a whining post. I just want to give my 2 cents as the one who is usually being attacked by the overpowered carrier (so they call it). Tell the carebears to stay away from low sec if they dont want shot and leave the nasty mean (sarcasm) carriers be, so players like me can find tactical ways to blow dim up . What next we gonna nerf how many people sit at a gate camp?? Anyway, leave the carriers alone they operate just fine... just be sure not to run into one in a dark ally by yourself.
Raneru Darwin With Attitude oooh Shiny	Posted - 2007.10.26 11:04:00 - [422] I fully support the nerfing of carriers solo offensive potential. Providing their more specialized logistics role is boosted.
Damned Force	Posted - 2007.10.26 11:27:00 - [423] Originally by: Raneru I fully support the nerfing of carriers solo offensive potential. Providing their more specialized logistics role is boosted. because u a fool!!! u ever fought a carrier? do u know what offense potential have alone? nothing, null, zero...... Just the worst noob die to a lonely carrier
Raneru Darwin With Attitude oooh Shiny	Posted - 2007.10.26 11:36:00 - [424] Edited by: Raneru on 26/10/2007 11:37:40 Edited by: Raneru on 26/10/2007 11:37:19 Originally by: Damned Force Originally by: Raneru I fully support the nerfing of carriers solo offensive potential. Providing their more specialized logistics role is boosted. because u a fool!!! u ever fought a carrier? do u know what offense potential have alone? nothing, null, zero...... Just the worst noob die to a lonely carrier If they have zero offensive potential currently and they are nerfing offensive potential then why are you complaining... In gangs, they will have the same offensive potential if you delegate your fighters. Caps are not supposed to be flown solo, you are supposed to need other players help to move them (people get round this with alts) and support them. btw, i've been involved with killin loads of carriers
Rinaldo Titano Caldari Domus Fatalis Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2007.10.26 11:41:00 - [425] Edited by: Rinaldo Titano on 26/10/2007 11:41:38 Originally by: Raneru Edited by: Raneru on 26/10/2007 11:37:40 Edited by: Raneru on 26/10/2007 11:37:19 Originally by: Damned Force Originally by: Raneru I fully support the nerfing of carriers solo offensive potential. Providing their more specialized logistics role is boosted. because u a fool!!! u ever fought a carrier? do u know what offense potential have alone? nothing, null, zero...... Just the worst noob die to a lonely carrier If they have zero offensive potential currently and they are nerfing offensive potential then why are you complaining... In gangs, they will have the same offensive potential if you delegate your fighters. Caps are not supposed to be flown solo, you are supposed to need other players help to move them (people get round this with alts) and support them. btw, i've been involved with killin loads of carriers Because take away the DPS it have is not cutting the offensive, but mostly the defensive capabilities. Till the enemy was shooting the drones, he don't shoot on u. And this change was the smallest. to take away the logistic capability is 1000x worst. And delegating figthers would be no prob if: would be no lag fighters would not pop so easy fighters would not cost 17-20m So i fully agree with the poster above u
Schani Kratnorr Internal Revenue Service	Posted - 2007.10.26 12:19:00 - [426] Edited by: Schani Kratnorr on 26/10/2007 12:20:23 Claiming Carriers/Motherships are solo-pwnmobiles proves nothing. As many posters in this thread have pointed out, any ship class has weakneses that can be exploited. I can understand the need to change stuff and mix it up a bit, but have you considered: Fixing drones without changing year-old ship stats? Having played the game since it came out, you (CCP) should listen to what I have to say now: Nerfing one thing, inevitably leads to another becoming the best. You then have to constantly run around trying to locate the new "best thing", and apply the nerfbat. You are, in other words, fighting an unending battle. Moreover, your fighting method manages to anger a lot of the people who now feel cheated because they made the mistake of going for a high-end ship that is now getting a massive 50% damage nerf. The idea of limiting the number of fighters that can be controllled without assistance from gang members is a fine idea, BUT (and this is the KEY), it wont work unless you fix the lag that makes assigning them 100%, completely, undeniably impossible to work. Even launching drones/fighters is a choppy affair. If you have to assign groups of five or less to gang members before getting back to your "pre-nerf DPS", then why bother at all? IF (and that is a big IF) you manage to create a new drone interface that is comepletely unaffected by lag, then PERHAPS this could work. BUT only if you could somehow "pre assign" each fighter or fighter group to a specific gang member, so that once launched, you only had to click ONE button and they'd be off supporting the squad member in question. In addition, you'd have to allow for full fighter functionality while in Triage mode. That is, remove the "damage penalty" from carriers/motherships while they support their fleet. Perhaps allowing them to continue to be effective by assigning fighters during triage mode can make up for this massive wack in the delecate parts of EVERYONE who has spent 1 bn ISK and time on skills, and perhaps tens of billions on a ship that now looks more like this than this And here's another free TIP! Fixing a problem does not always have to involved changing existing items. In fact, accepting that carriers and motherships were overpowered and adding new classes of ships to "nerf" them would be a FAR better approach. You would avoid having to stirr up resentment from a lot of people (by your own admission there are 10.000 carriers in game).
judes23 The Silent Rage M. PIRE	Posted - 2007.10.26 13:53:00 - [427] Schani Kratnorr, that was well said. the only thing i could add to that is 5 drones/fighters for your own personal useage is NOT enough. Give us 10 atleast ----------------------------------- save them, save your future


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 .. 15 :: [one 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.