EVE Search - ALTERNATIVE TIMELINE: One Year Ago... CCP announce the follwing

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

ALTERNATIVE TIMELINE: One Year Ago... CCP announce the follwing

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2007.10.22 07:48:00 - [1] Edited by: Le Skunk on 22/10/2007 07:51:42 Imagine It is one year ago........ A new ship type is coming out. Its going to have a HUGE structure/shield/structure Its going to be able to fit capital sized modules - repping huge amount of armor / shield Its going to be able to remotely rep huge amounts of damage - enabling a BS to sustain massive damage Its going to be able to carry tons of stuff in its on board hanger - avoiding gatecamps and aiding resupply Its going to have jump drive capability Its going to have a massive drone bay - and deploy five of a new type of drone.. THE FIGHTER which does three times the damage of any other drone in game You will be able to assign these fighters to your gang mates AND STILL use five yourself. The fighters EVEN FOLLOW PEOPLE INTO WARP Its only going to cost about 7 times the cost of the most expensive mainstream battleship. Cheaper even then some faction ships. It going to be called the CARRIER. You would have all wet your pants, ed a brick and praised CCP for their wonderfulness/ranted about how overpowered it is. Now because youve got used to using 15 drones and CCP had the sheer brass neck to even suggest they are thinking about AN IDEA about lowering drone use. You all go through the roof and eat the new dev alive with your words... your horrible words. You should all be ashamed of yourself. SKUNK
Okkie2	Posted - 2007.10.22 07:53:00 - [2] Edited by: Okkie2 on 22/10/2007 07:55:47 Nerfing a ship to fix problems that don't exist (and doesn't even solve the real problem) is not the way to solve things That's the reason there is so much complaining. A Carrier/MOM cannot be used solo in 0.0 and a carrier cannot be used solo in lowsec (both will be killed easily by a competent gang). The only problem are the MOMs in lowsec which are invulnerable to electronic warfare, but strong enough to sit at a gate smartbombing anything that passes, and if a big gang arives they just jumpdrive away.
galadran Caldari Alcohol Fueled Brutality Axiom Empire	Posted - 2007.10.22 07:54:00 - [3] This man speaks the truth! I fail to see why anyone gets upset over the carrier CHANGES.
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2007.10.22 07:58:00 - [4] Originally by: Okkie2 Nerfing a problem which doesn't exist (and doesn't solve the real problem) is not the way to solve things That's the reason there is so much complaining. There are about a hundred people posting something along the lines of "boo hoo hoo i trained for 8 months for a carrier and you nerfed it. Im leaving the game with my fifteen accounts as the carrier with only 5 drones is useless. That new dev is an idiot Wrangler save me" Total overreaction, bandwagon stylee. If the alternative timeline scenario I outlined happened. EVERY single one of the people who trained/is training for a carrier STILL WOULD HAVE DONE. ergo Bunch of drama queens SKUNK
Jaketh Ivanes Amarr Do Or Die And Live Or Try	Posted - 2007.10.22 08:01:00 - [5] Edited by: Jaketh Ivanes on 22/10/2007 08:06:23 Originally by: galadran This man speaks the truth! I fail to see why anyone gets upset over the suggested carrier CHANGES. And so do you, with a slight change People are drama queens. The slightest bump in the road, and their world crumbles to dust. EDIT: Come to think about it, the only ones who generally voice their fear in anger, are drama queens. The rest of the players, who either agree with the changes, disagree somewhat but can understand it or just don't care, won't voice their oppinion on the forums. They will learn and adapt. Damn, I just became a drama queen against the drama queens
Amarria Black Clan Anthraxx	Posted - 2007.10.22 08:05:00 - [6] Here's another hypothetical for your alternate universe, Skunk: "We've had some problems with bookmarks clogging up the database. One possible solution to the problem is allowing pilots to warp to within 0 of their destination. Instead, we're simply removing the bookmark system altogether. Problem solved." I've got a fun RL exercise you should try out. Get two 5 year olds, preferably with parental permission. Put them in separate rooms. Give one kid a candy bar. See how happy this makes them? Now give the second kid two candy bars. Wait a few minutes until they've gobbled down the first candy bar, then take the second one away. Reaction's a little less enthusiastic than the first kid, neh? This is general human nature, and should serve to illustrate why people are less than pleased with the changes. Compound this with the simple fact that the proposed carrier/mom nerf is a bad solution to a real problem, which just means more half-assed fixes in the future.
Jenny Spitfire Caldari	Posted - 2007.10.22 08:09:00 - [7] I find myself agreeing with Le Skunk. This game community should be nicer towards each other and the Devs. Nice one, Skunk. You can be my friend. :) --------- Technica impendi Caldari generis. Pax Caldaria! Kali is for KArebearLIng. I 100% agree with Avon. Female EVE gamers? Mail Zajo or visit WGOE.Public in-game.
Selene D'Celeste Caldari The D'Celeste Estate	Posted - 2007.10.22 08:10:00 - [8] Why the list presented in the OP sounds all fine and dandy, if not amazing, in a pre-carrier EVE, we're not talking about some hypothetical future ubership. We're talking about a staple of fleet warfare that is tried and true. Ships that die, constantly. Ships that are, arguably, underpowered in their support roles and only make up for it because of their larger nature overall. Talking about the past and looking at theoretical dreams is not the same as looking at tried and true reality. Plenty of valid points have been raised. Saying that everyone is whining for no reason over and over is nothing more than a sad attempt at mass trolling.
Omega Man The Geddy Foundation	Posted - 2007.10.22 08:11:00 - [9] Congratulations Le Skunk, after all these months you have managed to make a post that has not moaned about the balancing of Privateers.. Now you were saying, some people moaning about carrier nerfs. - Happy user of CAOD troll cleaner http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=584345
Okkie2	Posted - 2007.10.22 08:13:00 - [10] Originally by: Le Skunk Originally by: Okkie2 Nerfing a problem which doesn't exist (and doesn't solve the real problem) is not the way to solve things That's the reason there is so much complaining. If the alternative timeline scenario I outlined happened. EVERY single one of the people who trained/is training for a carrier STILL WOULD HAVE DONE. To be honest, i wouldn't have trained it. I want a ship which is in the middle of the fight aiding his mates and killing the enemy, not a POS-hugger which doesn't see anything of the fight. If this nerf would solve the actual problem i would be ok with it, bit it just doesn't. It changes absolutely nothing except making it the carrier pilot harder.
C601	Posted - 2007.10.22 08:16:00 - [11] Originally by: Jaketh Ivanes Originally by: galadran This man speaks the truth! And so do you, with a slight change People are drama queens. The slightest bump in the road, and their world crumbles to dust. And with that just like everyone else, they will adjust and move on... IMO CCP is doing the right thing, If anyone is to blame, blame your co carrier and mothership pilot who likes to gate camp in lowsec. Looking at that 30+page thread you swear carrier pilots where they only ones ever effected by adjustments, give me a break Don't like it ?, Can I have your stuff ?
UPS Truck	Posted - 2007.10.22 08:16:00 - [12] There is no problem with carriers.
Kwint Sommer Incoherent Inc Otaku Invasion	Posted - 2007.10.22 08:17:00 - [13] Originally by: Amarria Black Here's another hypothetical for your alternate universe, Skunk: "We've had some problems with bookmarks clogging up the database. One possible solution to the problem is allowing pilots to warp to within 0 of their destination. Instead, we're simply removing the bookmark system altogether. Problem solved." I've got a fun RL exercise you should try out. Get two 5 year olds, preferably with parental permission. Put them in separate rooms. Give one kid a candy bar. See how happy this makes them? Now give the second kid two candy bars. Wait a few minutes until they've gobbled down the first candy bar, then take the second one away. Reaction's a little less enthusiastic than the first kid, neh? This is general human nature, and should serve to illustrate why people are less than pleased with the changes. Compound this with the simple fact that the proposed carrier/mom nerf is a bad solution to a real problem, which just means more half-assed fixes in the future. Well put. I would like to add that you won't find a single carrier pilot out there that thinks this is a good idea. You might find a few that think Motherships are overpowered and need to be nerfed -still only a few out of hundreds- but you won't find a single one that thinks this is a good solution to anything. That's because they've tried assigning fighters and seen how utterly the system fails, especially under combat situations. Ultimately even if you can affectively assign multiple groups of fighters, quickly, in a combat situation you're still entrusting several hundred million of worth of fragile fighters to people that rarely if ever use them and almost always -at least in my and comrades experiences- loose them under pressure. Given the current system assigning fighters is not a viable option in large fleet battles which leaves a carrier with about the firepower of a blaster megathron. So at this point the only really useful role of a carrier not already being filled is logistics and since alpha strikes will destroy a BS they're only useful for repping other capitals and POS's so they're now less useful than a Dreadnought. Oh and triage mode is broken where as at least dread's siege mode is helpful.
Jaketh Ivanes Amarr Do Or Die And Live Or Try	Posted - 2007.10.22 08:25:00 - [14] Originally by: Amarria Black Here's another hypothetical for your alternate universe, Skunk: "We've had some problems with bookmarks clogging up the database. One possible solution to the problem is allowing pilots to warp to within 0 of their destination. Instead, we're simply removing the bookmark system altogether. Problem solved." I've got a fun RL exercise you should try out. Get two 5 year olds, preferably with parental permission. Put them in separate rooms. Give one kid a candy bar. See how happy this makes them? Now give the second kid two candy bars. Wait a few minutes until they've gobbled down the first candy bar, then take the second one away. Reaction's a little less enthusiastic than the first kid, neh? This is general human nature, and should serve to illustrate why people are less than pleased with the changes. Compound this with the simple fact that the proposed carrier/mom nerf is a bad solution to a real problem, which just means more half-assed fixes in the future. So, what you are saying is, that people are acting like 5-year old? I do agree and the answer to them is "Grow up" . A lot of people say that the solution proposed by the dev (emphasis on proposed) is a bad solution. But so far, no none of those statements have been followed up with a better solution. I don't fly carriers or motherships (tho i have the skills and plan to get a carrier at some point), but the reasoning for the change made by the new dev sounds logical to me.
Johnny Darkseid Caldari School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2007.10.22 08:25:00 - [15] I'll just add that the vast majority of posters in teh mega thread seem to have missed this part at the end of the post.. Originally by: "Dev Blog" 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.
Xtreem Gallente Knockaround Guys Inc.	Posted - 2007.10.22 08:31:00 - [16] my problem is not with them making a change, but changing the type of ship and its in effect, main role, with only 5 fighters, and all the rest assigned it becomes all too much, people have got used to how they are, why change somthing that most people dont think are a problem! its like the gov saying, hey look at these new 6 wheeled cars, they look good everyone buys them, then 1 year on they say, well actually we are going to ban these now shurgs so p*** off everyone who bought one already. tbh id not mind if CCP offered me a refund for my carrier, and my mods at the standard rate as i dont wish to fly the ship now!
Johnny Darkseid Caldari School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2007.10.22 08:33:00 - [17] I guess you missed that last part of the dev blog too eh?
Jowen Datloran Caldari Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2007.10.22 08:34:00 - [18] I see nothing wrong in turning the carrier back into a strict supporting role. The complaints seem to come from people worrying that with the carrier changes they will no longer top the all important kill boards. ---------------- Mr. Science & Trade Institute
cal nereus Bounty Hunter - Dark Legion Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2007.10.22 08:37:00 - [19] Edited by: cal nereus on 22/10/2007 08:37:26 Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime. Or, alternatively... Give a man a fish, and then take it away, and you make him angry for a day. Teach a man to fish, and then steal everything he fishes, and you make him angry for a lifetime. --- Join BH-DL
Amarria Black Clan Anthraxx	Posted - 2007.10.22 08:37:00 - [20] Originally by: Johnny Darkseid I'll just add that the vast majority of posters in teh mega thread seem to have missed this part at the end of the post.. Originally by: "Dev Blog" 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. The kvetching and moaning stems from the inherent uncertainty. Is this one of those horrible ideas (Heat) that CCP is going to push regardless of community sentiment? Is this one of those horrible ideas that CCP will tone down to make more acceptable? Is this one of those horrible ideas that CCP will implement temporarily and then retract? Or is this one of those horrible ideas that CCP will never let get off the drawing board? How about if CCP took 2bil out of your wallet and set you back six months worth of training. How calmly and rationally would you respond?
insidion Caldari Last of the Technocracy	Posted - 2007.10.22 08:39:00 - [21] Although I am not and likely will never be a capital ship pilot, I am going to have to reluctantly agree....to both sides. Basically I think that CCP is right in thinking that the focus of carriers and motherships needs to be altered back to put them on track, but at the same time I agree with the playerbase that this seems a shortsighted solution. The chocolate bar analogy was brilliant, and perfectly sums up the reaction of cap ship pilots. The question isn't wether or not carriers are too powerful or not, it's that they are currently being 'misused' for lack of a better term. They were always meant to be team oriented tools, and that's what is in dispute. Sure they can be used as such, but they are just as easily used as solo 'omgwtfpwn' mobiles, and that's the key issue.
Rawr Cristina Caldari	Posted - 2007.10.22 08:42:00 - [22] Edited by: Rawr Cristina on 22/10/2007 08:42:26 Originally by: Jowen Datloran I see nothing wrong in turning the carrier back into a strict supporting role. CCP are 'fixing' something that isn't broken. The point is, I spent a year of training and 3BIL isk to get into my Carrier only to have CCP turn it into nothing but a Logistics ship with more HP and far less mobility. If that had been how they were intended to be, I wouldn't have aimed for one in the first place. I already had doubts about their effectiveness, but this is a joke. A Carrier can now be locked down by a single Interceptor or well-tanked AF due to it's inability to launch more than 5 drones. -----
Johnny Darkseid Caldari School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2007.10.22 08:46:00 - [23] Originally by: Amarria Black Originally by: Johnny Darkseid I'll just add that the vast majority of posters in teh mega thread seem to have missed this part at the end of the post.. Originally by: "Dev Blog" 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. The kvetching and moaning stems from the inherent uncertainty. Is this one of those horrible ideas (Heat) that CCP is going to push regardless of community sentiment? Is this one of those horrible ideas that CCP will tone down to make more acceptable? Is this one of those horrible ideas that CCP will implement temporarily and then retract? Or is this one of those horrible ideas that CCP will never let get off the drawing board? How about if CCP took 2bil out of your wallet and set you back six months worth of training. How calmly and rationally would you respond? I guess all I'm saying is that maybe they should put forth their own ideas for a change instead of treating it as a done deal with CCP going: "Sorry playerbase but we CCP are not interested in your input and will impliment this change so nyaanyaaa". Everyone is just crying about how horrible the change will be instead of rationally discussing it with CCP like CCP has plainly asked them to at the end of the blog. How hard can it be?
Amarria Black Clan Anthraxx	Posted - 2007.10.22 08:59:00 - [24] Originally by: Johnny Darkseid I guess all I'm saying is that maybe they should put forth their own ideas for a change instead of treating it as a done deal with CCP going: "Sorry playerbase but we CCP are not interested in your input and will impliment this change so nyaanyaaa". Everyone is just crying about how horrible the change will be instead of rationally discussing it with CCP like CCP has plainly asked them to at the end of the blog. How hard can it be? It takes all of two seconds to figure out that this is a bad idea. It takes quite some time to invent an elegant solution. Thusly why CCP didn't present the elegant solution in the first place. It's not one problem. It's several. Nigh-unkillable moms in lowsec? Well, you could restrict them to 0.0. Blobs? Change the fundamental nature of 0.0 sovereignty and POS warfare. Lagbombs? Better servers. A lot of this, we can't even propose reasonable solutions to, as we have no way of knowing exactly how CCP runs their daily operations. If one of us really had the magic bullet that would fix each and every problem, we'd not be shouting it on the forums. We'd be presenting it to CCP. In Iceland. Printed on the back of a job application.
Yaay Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.10.22 09:12:00 - [25] Originally by: Le Skunk Edited by: Le Skunk on 22/10/2007 07:51:42 Imagine It is one year ago........ A new ship type is coming out. Its going to have a HUGE structure/shield/structure Its going to be able to fit capital sized modules - repping huge amount of armor / shield Its going to be able to remotely rep huge amounts of damage - enabling a BS to sustain massive damage Its going to be able to carry tons of stuff in its on board hanger - avoiding gatecamps and aiding resupply Its going to have jump drive capability Its going to have a massive drone bay - and deploy five of a new type of drone.. THE FIGHTER which does three times the damage of any other drone in game You will be able to assign these fighters to your gang mates AND STILL use five yourself. The fighters EVEN FOLLOW PEOPLE INTO WARP Its only going to cost about 7 times the cost of the most expensive mainstream battleship. Cheaper even then some faction ships. It going to be called the CARRIER. You would have all wet your pants, ed a brick and praised CCP for their wonderfulness/ranted about how overpowered it is. Now because youve got used to using 15 drones and CCP had the sheer brass neck to even suggest they are thinking about AN IDEA about lowering drone use. You all go through the roof and eat the new dev alive with your words... your horrible words. You should all be ashamed of yourself. SKUNK This isn't a year and a half ago. This isn't the same game, the same rules, the same conditions. There is also no way to retrospect skill training. It's easy to talk about the past assuming all the stuff that happened after to get us to where we were didn't exist less the one peice that makes our point valid. Were logistics ships good tanks, or good repairers, were fleets 300 daily in 0.0... were capital blobs 100 strong on a somewhat frequent basis... no, so yeah, that might not have sounded so terrible... and what would we have seen... carriers sitting at pos assinging fighters and devs wondering how this ship became so boring... wait, that did happen anyways, OH YEAH!
Angelik'a Gallente	Posted - 2007.10.22 09:24:00 - [26] Originally by: Le Skunk Edited by: Le Skunk on 22/10/2007 07:51:42 Imagine It is one year ago........ A new ship type is coming out. Its going to have a HUGE structure/shield/structure Its going to be able to fit capital sized modules - repping huge amount of armor / shield Its going to be able to remotely rep huge amounts of damage - enabling a BS to sustain massive damage Its going to be able to carry tons of stuff in its on board hanger - avoiding gatecamps and aiding resupply Its going to have jump drive capability Its going to have a massive drone bay - and deploy five of a new type of drone.. THE FIGHTER which does three times the damage of any other drone in game You will be able to assign these fighters to your gang mates AND STILL use five yourself. The fighters EVEN FOLLOW PEOPLE INTO WARP Its only going to cost about 7 times the cost of the most expensive mainstream battleship. Cheaper even then some faction ships. It going to be called the CARRIER. You would have all wet your pants, ed a brick and praised CCP for their wonderfulness/ranted about how overpowered it is. Now because youve got used to using 15 drones and CCP had the sheer brass neck to even suggest they are thinking about AN IDEA about lowering drone use. You all go through the roof and eat the new dev alive with your words... your horrible words. You should all be ashamed of yourself. SKUNK Man you complain about everything. I even read you complaining about the carrier changes in the dev blog thread. Privateers were nerfed. Get over it.
Kagura Nikon Minmatar MASS HOMICIDE Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.10.22 09:45:00 - [27] Originally by: Okkie2 Edited by: Okkie2 on 22/10/2007 07:55:47 Nerfing a ship to fix problems that don't exist (and doesn't even solve the real problem) is not the way to solve things That's the reason there is so much complaining. A Carrier/MOM cannot be used solo in 0.0 and a carrier cannot be used solo in lowsec (both will be killed easily by a competent gang). The only problem are the MOMs in lowsec which are invulnerable to electronic warfare, but strong enough to sit at a gate smartbombing anything that passes, and if a big gang arives they just jumpdrive away. have you ever faced a 40 carrier blob? If not, how can you say that the problem don 't exist? Face a 40 carrier blob then come tell me no problem exist. Eve is Capital online nowadays If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
Plave Okice Gallente 0utlaws	Posted - 2007.10.22 09:50:00 - [28] While I don't agree with the proposed changes I can't believe I'm reading people swearing at the dev in question and calling for him to be sacked , pathetic, childish behaviour.
Nasair	Posted - 2007.10.22 09:53:00 - [29] Get it on the test server with the new drone code and see if it works....
malet Quam Singulari	Posted - 2007.10.22 09:55:00 - [30] I for one dont agree that carriers should be nerfed. Many pilots including myself have invested well over a years training specifically so if we do get attacked or get into a fight we can defend ourselves. Carriers were designed so a max of 15 fighters could be used by the pilot and thats what alot of us trained for , then you take that away from us. Titans - nerfed Motherships - nerfed Carrier - being lined up for nerfing Whats next you arent alowed to fit more than one gun on a battleship incase you kill someone to quick. Wake up ccp. The capital ships are powerful for a reason. Why nerf them? What happens when you are restocking etc in a 0.4 system. You get bumped off the station and attacked. Alot of good 5 fighters is going to do you as you cant assign fighters in a 0.4 This issue needs a serious rethink

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.