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
Yaay Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.10.22 10:09:00 - [31] Originally by: Kagura Nikon 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 Are you complaining because you can't do it, or because every time you've tried to use carriers to your own advantage, they've fallen to a smaller fleet w/o capitals? Don't ask for game changes, try changing who you fly with or who you let control your own fleet.
Ares Lightfeather Gallente	Posted - 2007.10.22 10:10:00 - [32] The devs have now clearly shown what they want fleets to be : groups of one cap ship with an escort of 4 - 6 battleship (or any non-cap ship) around them. Currently there are fleets composed of cap ships only, which isn't what they intended. They probably believed that the money necessary for them would be enough to deter people from using them like that. While I don't know if that solution is better or worse than what exist now, this change reduces the number of cap ships in a fleet, with is the only justification I'll ever need. -- Siggie ! Come back here ! -- Originally by: Victor Valka Originally by: MotherMoon well a drone UI is a bit of an artist job Drone AI is obviously done by an artist too. One that is heavily into abstract
Kagura Nikon Minmatar MASS HOMICIDE Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.10.22 10:16:00 - [33] Originally by: Yaay Originally by: Kagura Nikon 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 Are you complaining because you can't do it, or because every time you've tried to use carriers to your own advantage, they've fallen to a smaller fleet w/o capitals? Don't ask for game changes, try changing who you fly with or who you let control your own fleet. Because its ridiculows that anyone without a capital is unable to play in fleet fights when this happen!! Only capitals have the HP enough to survive long enough to do anythign in huge fleet battles!!! When alliances field fleets of only capitals ships its PROVED that capitals are broken, period. CCp shoudl revert the 400% HP buff capitals recieved! If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
Greenwing SuX ltd. Rare Faction	Posted - 2007.10.22 10:18:00 - [34] Originally by: Jowen Datloran 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. Too bad the carrier is pretty bad in it's support role, remote boosting only works in small gangs and once dampened it can't do anything except asign/use it's fighters. Furthermore the killboards won't change because the same amount of fighters will still be used. 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. History tells us such changes usually will be performed anyway (maybe a little bit changed). History also tells us only whining seems to help (too bad most people don't even try to be constructive in there posts) Originally by: Kagura Nikon 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 A 40 carrier blob sounds like a big gang to me and so you will need a big gang to kill them so i don't see the problem ? And what's this change going to do about it ? They still have enough fighters to kill anything and don't forget that even whith 15 fighters they still don't have the DPS of a good BS. CCP Zulupark's statement is : 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. The main problem, capital ships are not direct nber deathbringers, they already need support to survive. They will win a 1 vs 1 with a BS, but they are designed for that. The only direct nber deathbringers are the MOMs in lowsec, so fix that problem and don't fix things that aren't broken
Cpt Fina Mutually Assured Distraction	Posted - 2007.10.22 10:21:00 - [35] Why do people think that the time they spend on training something is a valid argunemt against nerfing it?
Mark Lucius Forbidden Lore	Posted - 2007.10.22 10:28:00 - [36] Originally by: Ares Lightfeather The devs have now clearly shown what they want fleets to be : groups of one cap ship with an escort of 4 - 6 battleship (or any non-cap ship) around them. Currently there are fleets composed of cap ships only, which isn't what they intended. They probably believed that the money necessary for them would be enough to deter people from using them like that. While I don't know if that solution is better or worse than what exist now, this change reduces the number of cap ships in a fleet, with is the only justification I'll ever need. This. --- Originally by: Malachon Draco If you eat your veggies, maybe one day you'll grow up and be a real big alt poster like Johnny ReeRee or Alice C.
Jaleera Kaisin Amarr Eve Defence Force Praesidium Libertatis	Posted - 2007.10.22 10:51:00 - [37] Edited by: Jaleera Kaisin on 22/10/2007 10:52:07 Hmmm - Agree with OP on attitude of replies to Dev suggestion, childish personal attacks are not warranted, however, I too feel that this is a poor solution to a couple of real issues 1) MOM ship gate camps in Low-Sec 2) Fighter Blobs being Battle Winners in lag situations. Unfortunately there are lots of whines about it and little in the way of contructive suggestions/criticism. If CCP are to do this they need to look at the issues around assigning fighters, cap cost/targetting issues for logistics support and fixing triage. To do this would require mmore work though as CCP would need to look into eliminating the issues. (insurance for Drones?, Increased Cap or Cap logistics bonus?, Assigning Dones when in Triage? lock time on friendlies? etc) There are other things that could be done instead of reducing number of Fighters/Drones controlled: - Ban MOM's from low-sec (like Titans 0.0 shiips only) - Make fighters NOT auto aggress, that takes away their advantage iin lag situations - Look at how fighters cause lag and reduce on hardware/software calls How about another radical suggestion? Take away carrier ability to use Cap remote reps AND the ability to assign Fighters. This forces the carrier pilot to the front lines and also requires logistics support to keep the carrier flying. (Finally a use for logistics ships ) There are many ways that the above issues could be tackled but I would respectfully suggest that limiting the carriers direct control to only 5 drones is eroding the basis for calling them "Carriers". So stop with the personal attacks on a dev "Suggestion" but rather offer rational reasons whey it is not a good idea and offer alternate suggestions. I'm sure experienced carrier pilots will have better ones than those above but its a starting place.
Ares Lightfeather Gallente	Posted - 2007.10.22 10:57:00 - [38] Edited by: Ares Lightfeather on 22/10/2007 10:59:12 Well, as I said before, I think it's a good idea because it reduces the number of cap ships in fleet. Solutions would then be to make them more useful in the front lines (as it has been said by the one that don't like this idea that the carrier has rather useless support abilities...). Like : - reduce the targeting time when targeting allies, - adding more tank capabilities to the carrier so it dies less easily (not sure whether this point is needed), - enabling new bonus to allies like better bonuses to remote repairing, - build in immunity to dampening only when targetting allies for repairing, - limiting leadership bonuses so they affect only the grid the carrier is in, - obi wan kenobi And probably other ideas like that could work. However, it's general discussion, only a few people actually want to try to discuss solutions. -- Siggie ! Come back here ! -- Originally by: Victor Valka Originally by: MotherMoon well a drone UI is a bit of an artist job Drone AI is obviously done by an artist too. One that is heavily into abstract
Ebodhisatva Gallente hunter killers	Posted - 2007.10.22 10:59:00 - [39] Check my sig? Originally by: Dreznengul Only 4 motherships? really? Get with the times, this is how you camp low sec
Obidom Jax	Posted - 2007.10.22 11:57:00 - [40] Well i have never played a carrier, am still only 2 months into playing game but from what i understand from this argument is that they want to reduce the amount of drones a carrier can have active? if i recall the max amount of drones you can have active at once is 10? (apologies if i am wrong but i am not a drone fighter) If you look at comparisons to modern day navies carriers are always escorted by support vessels due to their vulnerabilities to direct attack from heavier ships surely this should be right a 1on1 attack of Carrier Vs BS should result in heavy damage to both as carrier will use its drones for main attack, able to keep launching more as each are destroyed, Carriers should be equipt with point defense systems to defend it self against missles etc and of course shields to protect itself, carriers are not meant to be behemoths that require massive groups to destroy but support vessels capable of repelling smaller vessles that would otherwise harry larger vessels well thats my thinking behind it, its all down to how you equip your vessel and how you play, if you got plenty of support vessels and you getting beat maybe its how those supposrt vessels are protecting you Carrier = Drones to harry Frigates + Point defenses to intercept missles and frigates = BS free to hammer into relevant counterparts free of Frigates annoying them maybe im wrong but thats my perception Viva La Noob :)
Cadiz Caldari No Quarter. Vae Victis.	Posted - 2007.10.22 12:16:00 - [41] Edited by: Cadiz on 22/10/2007 12:17:39 Back in the day, at the very beginning, carriers were heavily predisposed towards being support ships. As you could delegate fighters from inside POS shields, there was really not much reason for carriers to be on the front line, except for remote repping each other (and the occasional heavily plated BS that could survive getting primaried long enough for friendly carriers to lock & rep). The devs didn't like this - who wants to spend months of training and billions of isk just to sit at a POS and listen to everybody else downing primaries? - and decided they wanted carriers to be used as front-line combat platforms. So, bit by bit, they whittled away at where & how you could delegate. First you couldn't delegate while inside POS shields, but you could delegate outside then go back inside. Then they made it so that going inside POS shields auto-undelegated all of your fighters. These were good steps forward for pushing carriers out onto the front lines, and shows that if they wanted them to be "support" ships, they wanted them to be very aggressive support ships standing on the line alongside everybody else. As other people with extensive experience in using front-line carriers in fleets have said, delegating fighters in the middle of a fleet action is nightmarish. The UI is terrible for it, you're lagging to hell and we all know what lag does to right-click menus, you have to scroll through huge lists to find the right people, and they may or may not be dead by the time you throw the fighters at them. As such, most carriers being used in direct combat prefer to keep fighters under their own control, because that makes things much easier to manage. Forced delegation basically removes much of the impetus towards front-line usage that the devs have been working towards and seems a fine kick back to the old days of "park that thing at a POS and go nap for a bit". Sure, they'll have to be hugging the edges of POS shields instead of being comfortably inside them, but the principle is the same. By removing the ability of a carrier to control its own full damage output, you basically relegate it to sitting off somewhere safe, constantly making sure that its fighters are assigned properly and not much else - otherwise it is not contributing to its full capacity, after all. So, I suppose the crux of the matter is: do CCP want carriers on the front lines? If so, why do they seem intent on making that role considerably more troublesome & pointless to execute? Carriers in small gangs are perfectly fine right now (they make superb force multipliers while still being vulnerable to things like sensor dampeners) and need no change, while the proposed changes don't really do anything for the big carrier gangs you see the major alliances occasionally fielding, except frustrate the pilots behind them with poorly designed UIs. After all, even now you don't see 100% capital fleets...sure, you may see groups of 40+ carriers (which is an entirely different mess, yay spider tanking), but they're usually accompanied by hundreds of sub-capital ships. BSes remain the core component of any self-respecting fleet, and this will not change until another ship class is implemented that has superior degrees of range, alpha strike capability, and affordability. ------ Director, No Quarter "There is no problem that cannot be solved by the judicious application of violence."
midge Mo'yb R.U.S.T. Phalanx Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.22 12:56:00 - [42] how about give asigned figters a speed/dmg/tank bonus when asigned this way it encourages team play... but chocolate bar analogy is perfect -----------------------------------------------
Sarah McTeef	Posted - 2007.10.22 13:05:00 - [43] Originally by: Le Skunk You all go through the roof and eat the new dev alive with your words... your horrible words. I agree. It was REALLY bad form for CCP to throw the new guy to the god damned wolves on this one. They had to know the reaction this was going to draw, I can't see them being that far out of touch with the community. Now the man has to move to a safe house and change his last name for fear of ninja assassins. That was truly mean guys, I love it.
Tassolhof Quam Singulari	Posted - 2007.10.22 13:27:00 - [44] In my Opion the only way this would work is the introduction of.... Capital Energy Neutralizer's Now before ppl say OMG no, put a limitation onto them... i.e Ship Class Limitation. This mod can only be used against another capital ship. As with a good tank, a carrier can easily tank multiple carriers attacking. Reducing the ammount of drones that can be used in any situation, without a support fleet, carriers will be useless except for hauling and pos repping.
angggggry	Posted - 2007.10.22 14:59:00 - [45] 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 saaaaame amount of droneeeees but neeeed more frieeeeends to do iiiit
Amarria Black Clan Anthraxx	Posted - 2007.10.22 15:14:00 - [46] Originally by: Sarah McTeef I agree. It was REALLY bad form for CCP to throw the new guy to the god damned wolves on this one. DING DING DING. We have a winner. The guy opens with this line: Originally by: CCP Zulupark Say hello to your newest balancer. He then drops a bombshell, and ends with this line: Originally by: CCP Zulupark 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. Note that he gives no timeframe whatsoever. Either he's playing a helluva prank, or someone just fed him into a meat grinder. Regardless, I'm sure CCP attained their goal. At the very least, they got us talking about the solo, small gang, and fleet role that a Carrier does and should play. Wait... could it be possible that CCP wants to limit the number of new Carrier pilots? They put forth this idea, and we wildly react. Remember, he never mentioned any sort of timetable. We already have ambulation and faction warfare as stated short-term goals. They drop this one dev blog from "the new guy", then never mention it again. How long until pilots feel comfortable training the costly and time-consuming skills associated with flying a Carrier? Six months? A year? How many potential Carrier pilots will instead be lured by a FOTM ship? Perhaps they don't really have any objections to the Carrier (they'll go after the moms first), they are just taking a measured action to curb any further expansion of existing Carrier assets. Maybe even CCP metagames in order to get us to play the game in the way they want. /tinfoilhat
cal nereus Bounty Hunter - Dark Legion Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2007.10.22 18:21:00 - [47] What, like speculative investing? Amazing how a few words from the right mouths changes the entire face of the game. Don't even need programmers anymore. --- Join BH-DL
Knocturnal omen. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.10.22 18:29:00 - [48] Originally by: Le Skunk 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 Now mr. Le Skunk pls let me know where can i get the isk 50mils every damn time the one who i assige fighters f**s up ? Will you haul all for meh and will you pay every damn time? If ccp nerfs or tweaks something don't waste my cash $$ that i paid for the accounts just to train something that will be useless. FIghters don't get the dmg bonunes when they are assigned to somebody. So i traind carrier 5 and fighters 5 just to say.. oh well your 3months of traning was worthless. Just cuz it fits you don't mean it dosn't fit the others... Why should everything in eve be fair for the weaker ones... Play and adapt. Fck Derek we got Xlop.
citizen amarr33sd3g4	Posted - 2007.10.22 19:49:00 - [49] Zulu is my new friend. I hate carriers.
C601	Posted - 2007.10.22 19:55:00 - [50] Originally by: Knocturnal Originally by: Le Skunk Now because youve got used to using 15 drones and CCP had the sheer brass neck to even suggest they are thinking about AN IDEA about lowering drone use. You all go through the roof and eat the new dev alive with your words... your horrible words. You should all be ashamed of yourself. SKUNK Now mr. Le Skunk pls let me know where can i get the isk 50mils every damn time the one who i assige fighters f***s up ? Will you haul all for meh and will you pay every damn time? If ccp nerfs or tweaks something don't waste my cash $$ that i paid for the accounts just to train something that will be useless. FIghters don't get the dmg bonunes when they are assigned to somebody. So i traind carrier 5 and fighters 5 just to say.. oh well your 3months of traning was worthless. Just cuz it fits you don't mean it dosn't fit the others... Why should everything in eve be fair for the weaker ones... Play and adapt. What just b/c you paid "cash" to play this game makes you special that CCP should make the game the way you want it.. wow you swear you where the only one By your own words Play and adapt.
Auron Shadowbane Teeth Of The Hydra R i s e	Posted - 2007.10.22 20:04:00 - [51] 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. Then I'd have been happy about a low-tier carrier... cause CARRIERS HAVE BEEN OUT FAR MORE THAN A DAMN YEAR YA NUB!
ThaMa Gebir Gallente Raddick Explorations Executive Outcomes	Posted - 2007.10.22 20:13:00 - [52] Skunk, you have no idea how often I have remembered that exact same dev-blog and wished it was actually so. Besides, after seeing way too many threads on "OMGCARRIERNURFAGEARGHHHH" I tend to just want to see one ray of light and intelligence here. Alas I feel it may have gone forever... ---------------------------- Confirmed heaviest member of RDEX........ Hah, no more hijacks here.
citizen amarr33sd3g4	Posted - 2007.10.22 21:12:00 - [53] Edited by: citizen amarr33sd3g4 on 22/10/2007 21:12:37 Originally by: ThaMa Gebir Skunk, you have no idea how often I have remembered that exact same dev-blog and wished it was actually so. Besides, after seeing way too many threads on "OMGCARRIERNURFAGEARGHHHH" I tend to just want to see one ray of light and intelligence here. Alas I feel it may have gone forever... You should look in the mirror.
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2007.10.22 21:15:00 - [54] Originally by: ThaMa Gebir Besides, after seeing way too many threads on "OMGCARRIERNURFAGEARGHHHH" I tend to just want to see one ray of light and intelligence here. Alas I feel it may have gone forever... No - Its still here. Weve still got the brains in the game: Originally by: Auron Shadowbane 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. Then I'd have been happy about a low-tier carrier... cause CARRIERS HAVE BEEN OUT FAR MORE THAN A DAMN YEAR YA NUB!
Sokratesz Paradox v2.0	Posted - 2007.10.22 21:15:00 - [55] I endorse the OP Paradox V2.0 is recruiting!
ThaMa Gebir Gallente Raddick Explorations Executive Outcomes	Posted - 2007.10.22 21:15:00 - [56] Originally by: citizen amarr33sd3g4 Edited by: citizen amarr33sd3g4 on 22/10/2007 21:12:37 Originally by: ThaMa Gebir Skunk, you have no idea how often I have remembered that exact same dev-blog and wished it was actually so. Besides, after seeing way too many threads on "OMGCARRIERNURFAGEARGHHHH" I tend to just want to see one ray of light and intelligence here. Alas I feel it may have gone forever... You should look in the mirror. My case exactly, no insult of substance. ---------------------------- Confirmed heaviest member of RDEX........ Hah, no more hijacks here.
Alekseyev Karrde The Royal Guard Giant Space Amoeba	Posted - 2007.10.22 21:19:00 - [57] Most obvious fix if lowsec motherships are the big problem? Change the game so motherships cant go anywhere but 0.0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -Alekseyev Ambassador, Fleet Commander, Council Member =The Royal Guard= "=TRG=Public" Channel www.rgrocks.com
Corwain Gallente Down In Flames	Posted - 2007.10.22 21:20:00 - [58] The Rorqal and the soon to be introduced Jump capable freighter will do a much better hauling job than carriers. Dreads tank better Carriers are poorly equipped to actually do any logistics, they struggle to target the ships they're trying to rep in realistic larger scale operations. They are now basically poorly designed logistics ships that have a bigger HP buffer than the logistics cruisers. Why call em carriers at all? Looks to me like they're not doing much carrying post-nerf. -- A Solo Arbitrator vid, Distortion by Corwain
ThaMa Gebir Gallente Raddick Explorations Executive Outcomes	Posted - 2007.10.22 21:24:00 - [59] Originally by: Corwain The Rorqal and the soon to be introduced Jump capable freighter will do a much better hauling job than carriers. Dreads tank better Carriers are poorly equipped to actually do any logistics, they struggle to target the ships they're trying to rep in realistic larger scale operations. They are now basically poorly designed logistics ships that have a bigger HP buffer than the logistics cruisers. Why call em carriers at all? Looks to me like they're not doing much carrying post-nerf. While I agree with the main points you made there, I have to add this and ask a quesion; Are the Carriers and MOMs getting the cargo bay nerfed? Are they suddenly losing their corporate hangar array? Are they losing their fitting capabilities or the ship maintenance array? No? Well it is not quite a nerf then is it? They can still carry stuff and it will finally put them into a position of battlefield support which they should have been from the start... ---------------------------- Confirmed heaviest member of RDEX........ Hah, no more hijacks here.
citizen amarr33sd3g4	Posted - 2007.10.22 21:37:00 - [60] Originally by: ThaMa Gebir Originally by: citizen amarr33sd3g4 Edited by: citizen amarr33sd3g4 on 22/10/2007 21:12:37 Originally by: ThaMa Gebir Skunk, you have no idea how often I have remembered that exact same dev-blog and wished it was actually so. Besides, after seeing way too many threads on "OMGCARRIERNURFAGEARGHHHH" I tend to just want to see one ray of light and intelligence here. Alas I feel it may have gone forever... You should look in the mirror. My case exactly, no insult of substance. The forums are not for insults. You claiming to be the only one of intelligence is rather lame don't you think?
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2007.10.22 21:39:00 - [61] Originally by: citizen amarr33sd3g4 Originally by: ThaMa Gebir Originally by: citizen amarr33sd3g4 Edited by: citizen amarr33sd3g4 on 22/10/2007 21:12:37 Originally by: ThaMa Gebir Skunk, you have no idea how often I have remembered that exact same dev-blog and wished it was actually so. Besides, after seeing way too many threads on "OMGCARRIERNURFAGEARGHHHH" I tend to just want to see one ray of light and intelligence here. Alas I feel it may have gone forever... You should look in the mirror. My case exactly, no insult of substance. The forums are not for insults. You claiming to be the only one of intelligence is rather lame don't you think? Not when it follows posts like this its not Originally by: Auron Shadowbane 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. Then I'd have been happy about a low-tier carrier... cause CARRIERS HAVE BEEN OUT FAR MORE THAN A DAMN YEAR YA NUB!
ThaMa Gebir Gallente Raddick Explorations Executive Outcomes	Posted - 2007.10.22 21:46:00 - [62] Originally by: citizen amarr33sd3g4 Originally by: ThaMa Gebir Originally by: citizen amarr33sd3g4 Edited by: citizen amarr33sd3g4 on 22/10/2007 21:12:37 Originally by: ThaMa Gebir Skunk, you have no idea how often I have remembered that exact same dev-blog and wished it was actually so. Besides, after seeing way too many threads on "OMGCARRIERNURFAGEARGHHHH" I tend to just want to see one ray of light and intelligence here. Alas I feel it may have gone forever... You should look in the mirror. My case exactly, no insult of substance. The forums are not for insults. You claiming to be the only one of intelligence is rather lame don't you think? Well to be completely honest yes. I have seen Eve in its entirety drop from a decent conversation to "OMG nerf this I cannot play". I mean really, it has just finally become too much. I am sick and tired of it and have noticed that I rarely even scout these boards looking for good advice anymore. It is full of screaming idiots all shouting nerfnerfnerf and noooo this cannot be, I do remember about 2 years ago while I was brand new when people would actually go out and look for advice and get it and long constructive posts on what particular bonuses on certain ships were best, and discussions on why a certain module or ship was overpowered. I wish for the old times, maybe I have become too old too soon for this game but I do remember and look back on occasions and wish for the old times. All in all I am not surprised the Devs speak less nowadays with the playerbase, they have good reason to. If you feel this was harsh I do apologise but this is just how I see it and would like to see it go back to very much the old-skool way. Now tell me if this is not actually true what I have posted here and I will happily revoke it. ---------------------------- Confirmed heaviest member of RDEX........ Hah, no more hijacks here.
Kcel Chim Caldari Arcane Technologies The Five	Posted - 2007.10.22 22:09:00 - [63] Originally by: ThaMa Gebir Well to be completely honest yes. I have seen Eve in its entirety drop from a decent conversation to "OMG nerf this I cannot play". I mean really, it has just finally become too much. I am sick and tired of it and have noticed that I rarely even scout these boards looking for good advice anymore. Im actually against the carrier nerf for various reasons but i agree with you about the boards in general. But this is what ure getting when you expand your small community to more and more players while alot of the "advice" oldtimers are actually banned from posting due to their "old school warnings for sigssize violations" etc. Quote: It is full of screaming idiots all shouting nerfnerfnerf and noooo this cannot be, I do remember about 2 years ago while I was brand new when people would actually go out and look for advice and get it and long constructive posts on what particular bonuses on certain ships were best, and discussions on why a certain module or ship was overpowered. Thats not entirely true, the carrier thread has alot of very detailed posts why and why not carriers should be nerfed however ppl get far more emotional these days because alot of isk and time is invested into specialized characters and equipment (a concept ccp always wanted to support). Back in the days training your "large projectile turret 5" into "large hybrid turret 5" took you 1 month. To switch from something t2 to another race t2 or even capital costs far more playtime. Not to mention the investment done in "faction gear" and "motherships" and "capital bpos" which take alot of time to pay of (IPOS etc) stuff which was not there 2 years ago. If a tempest got nerfed ppl refined it or platinum killed it and build / bought a megathron. You cant do that with a mothership. Especially not if you took the burden upon yourself to haul all the minerals and spend months "getting there". Not compareable sorry. Quote: I wish for the old times, maybe I have become too old too soon for this game but I do remember and look back on occasions and wish for the old times. The old times were crap too. I clearly remember the day projectiles got nerfed to hell and back and the amount of time it made me fly the only tempest in every fleet i joined. Minmatar whines where on the forums every day and i think it was close to 14 months later that hammer finally came around adding some dmg without actually taking up on the 100s of differnt better suggestions, leaving the typhoon and ACs still broken till 6 months ago. Quote: All in all I am not surprised the Devs speak less nowadays with the playerbase, they have good reason to. Which devs are you talking about ? In all honesty i dont even know if half of them are still on it. Tux dissapeared ? Hammer ? Tomb ? t20 ? Who else ? Ppl in general also got a shorter temper, alot of the issues which are present like x years really get to them and they keep ramming them home every thread a dev posts in. 3 years ago we hardly had that many "longtime issues" because we had far less equipment and barely enough skillpoints to even care about the big picture. Lag wasnt "as bad" and generally not as much timeinvestment and isk (which is just another timesink) were on the line. Quote: If you feel this was harsh I do apologise but this is just how I see it and would like to see it go back to very much the old-skool way. Now tell me if this is not actually true what I have posted here and I will happily revoke it. I dont think you would want to go back to the oldschool days because there was alot of stuff broken then aswell and without all the fancy new stuff they give us and all the new skills we can train you would be bored out of your skull flying the same ship for 4 years now. The playerbase exploded the universe stayed the same. Without all the improvements and new features the lifetime of the average eveplayer would be far lower and we both would be off.
SashaniX Gallente Center for Advanced Studies	Posted - 2007.10.22 22:16:00 - [64] Originally by: Le Skunk Please tell me where I get the isk when my gangmate who is socuting does not report and incoming gank fleet. Please tell me where i get the cash to cover it wehn my corpie runs off with the corp hanger. Please tell mw where i get the cash to cover my ships which dies because my gang mate is not remote repping me. Please tell me where i get the isk when my FC doomsdays my own ship. 1 - Insurance 2 - If you're dumb enough to grant full hangar access to everyone, it is your own stupidity. 3 - Insurance 4 - If you had a Titan and wished to waste it on your lowsec gatecamping and were still not smart enough to be off gate when the DD D fired or at least be tanked for it, that too is your own stupidity. Originally by: Le Skunk Its STILL would have all the points i outlined in my orignal post. It would still be a fantastic ship. If used correclty in gang it would suffer maybe a 2 or 3% drop in potential; annoying but not worthy of a 2000 post "IM LEAVING THE BUREAU... AGAIN" type whailing it is getting. 5/15 = 33% = Losing 66% of your potential DPS for a Carrier 5/25 = 20% = Losing 80% of your potential DPS for a Mothership Maybe learn some 4th grade math before you go throwing down arbitrary numbers. Originally by: Le Skunk Ive got a carrier docked up somewhere. I never bothered training it up yet - but ill do it eventuall - with or without any slight nerf. Adapt? Im a solo cloaking smartbomber - hows that for adapting Welp... linking killboards on the forums is a no-no, but you guys' Griefwatch one is relatively easy for people to track down anyhow. Funny that you see nothing wrong with a huge nerf to carriers and motherships that would give them extremely sub-par dps. You do have some rather impressive kills, command ships and navy apocs and the like, but looking through nothing bigger than a hauler was killed by your solo cloaking smartbomber. All of the shiny kills were in gangs, most of which had at least one recon using RSD that renders a carrier useless and all having more than enough tanking BS/CS to foil a measly 5 fighters... Can anyone say I want the low-sec win button back? Great of you to talk up the new design guy's ideas when they play directly into the hands of your hype/mega/domi/gal Recon pilot's plans for making isk with no risk, but not so great for all of the players that skilled for a year or more just to get a ship that costs 5-10x what your battleships do while gaining nothing more than a stronger tank.
ThaMa Gebir Gallente Raddick Explorations Executive Outcomes	Posted - 2007.10.22 22:29:00 - [65] Originally by: Kcel Chim Good stuff. Citizen Amarr, that my friend is a good discussion. Learn from it please. Kcel; Unfortunetley I was unable to find any decent posts with regards the Carrier nerf (Re-balance as far as I am concerned), I can see your point in the fact that carriers should be feared on the battlefield, but not for the fact they can drop a ton of drones on you, rather they have a fleet of friends they are supporting that can drop a ton of drones on you. With regards the projectiles; I wasn't around when that happened so I cannot speak with authority on it. I agree with the Refining, i had seen it done, but it still does not detract from the fact that these ships (IMHO) have been re-balanced to the ships they are supposed to be. I am perfectly happy to talk to people who will take their time to reply in a civil manner like you good sir, but I must say on this point of MOMS and Carriers I think we shall have to agree to disagree. I would dearly like to see how this actually turns out in the future with this change and hope it does work out for the best. I can imagine the true hardcore players will adapt and overcome while the whiners will leave and we shall have less database calls the nodes have to deal with. With regards the oldskool stuff, yes you are probably right, but boy at least we had little to no lag back then and fleet fights were actually possible, were they not? Good points in all though. I salute you. ---------------------------- Confirmed heaviest member of RDEX........ Hah, no more hijacks here.
ThaMa Gebir Gallente Raddick Explorations Executive Outcomes	Posted - 2007.10.22 22:36:00 - [66] Originally by: SashaniX Originally by: Le Skunk Its STILL would have all the points i outlined in my orignal post. It would still be a fantastic ship. If used correclty in gang it would suffer maybe a 2 or 3% drop in potential; annoying but not worthy of a 2000 post "IM LEAVING THE BUREAU... AGAIN" type whailing it is getting. 5/15 = 33% = Losing 66% of your potential DPS for a Carrier 5/25 = 20% = Losing 80% of your potential DPS for a Mothership Maybe learn some 4th grade math before you go throwing down arbitrary numbers. You need reading comp. to 5 I think, but then maybe that will not help you. In total the carrier pilot would lose nothing, except he cannot control all his drones directly himself. Think about it. ---------------------------- Confirmed heaviest member of RDEX........ Hah, no more hijacks here.
Kcel Chim Caldari Arcane Technologies The Five	Posted - 2007.10.22 22:43:00 - [67] Originally by: ThaMa Gebir friendly reply As you said its in the hands of the devs to decide upon carrier changes. People will adapt or leave, they always threaten or do. As far as the lag goes, it has been constantly getting worse with little settlement times but back in the days you could actually think about a 100 vs 100 fight where everyone saw the field and could activate mods. However seeing we are both still here, amongst many of the other "old schoolers" i have no doubt it wasnt and still isnt all that bad. Otherwise we would have chanceled sub already. I personally forsee far more problems of this kind in the future. Where fundamental problems like lag and code issues simply cant be fixed and get tried to bypass by hotfixing ships. However advertising specialisation + longtime endgame ships (be it capital or t2) will punish all those who have just one high skp char. Best would be to get atleast 4 accounts each specialized to one race pvp wise and a 5th acc for industry. Then ure prepared for any storm which may come ! Omg im actually advertising for Power of two now :p Ccp should start to pay us oldtimers a pension if we are doing the marketing now.
Lazuran Gallente Time And ISK Sink Corporation	Posted - 2007.10.22 22:49:00 - [68] Originally by: Le Skunk stuff ... Dude, 1 year ago most of the people who are voicing their disgust over CCP's intentions, already had their Carriers. It seems like CCP wants to listen to the whines of those noobs who are going to leave the game after 7 months anyway and screw over those old players who have been paying subscription for multiple accounts for 4+ years. If they think it's a good idea for their business, they should go ahead ... I know that it will be good for my wallet, health and spare time. "...been designed for one purpose and one purpose only. Imagine a handful of repair drones pouring from the carebear's mouth. Now imagine they have um, nothing." -Unknown Hel redesigner (2007)
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2007.10.22 22:53:00 - [69] Originally by: SashaniX 4 - If you had a Titan and were still not smart enough to be off gate when the DD D fired or at least be tanked for it, that too is your own stupidity. Tell that to the entire fleet of vets who got doomsday ed by their own titan. Also cant DD in low sec (but i nit pick) You seem unable to understand my point. Eve is a team game - and yes - your gogin to have to trust some people at some point if you want to be effective. Your going to have to trust someone to remotely rep you. Your going to have to trust people to have access to your hanger Your going to have to trust people to scout for you YOUR GOING TO HAVE TO TRUST PEOPLE WITH YOUR ASSIGNED FIGHTERS If the person scouting, or repping, or hauling makes a***up. Then thats just one of those things. People make mistakes. 9 times out of 10 they wont. If your 20mill isk fighters get popped whilst under someone else's control - well - thats the risk you take using such a great item. Originally by:** Le Skunk Its STILL would have all the points i outlined in my orignal post. It would still be a fantastic ship. If used correclty in gang it would suffer maybe a 2 or 3% drop in potential; annoying but not worthy of a 2000 post "IM LEAVING THE BUREAU... AGAIN" type whailing it is getting. Quote: 5/15 = 33% = Losing 66% of your potential DPS for a Carrier 5/25 = 20% = Losing 80% of your potential DPS for a Mothership Maybe learn some 4th grade math before you go throwing down arbitrary numbers. I like it when they insult me whilst quoting evidence of their OWN stupidity. I clearly state 1) "If used correctly in gang" (IE with assigned fighters)it loses noting 2) Otherwise "It loses 2% of its potential". Not its DPS. Its potential as a ship. Its tank/its hanger array/ its jump drive/ its remote repping. its siege module....all the points i made in my original post. Quote: Funny that you see nothing wrong with a huge nerf to carriers and motherships that would give them extremely sub-par dps. You do have some rather impressive kills, command ships and navy apocs and the like, but looking through nothing bigger than a hauler was killed by your solo cloaking smartbomber. All of the shiny kills were in gangs, most of which had at least one recon using RSD that renders a carrier useless and all having more than enough tanking BS/CS to foil a measly 5 fighters... Can anyone say I want the low-sec win button back? 1) The DPS chucked out by a solo smart bomber is not enough to kill anything bigger. The HP boost saw to that. 2) Carriers jumping in on me whilst smart bombing have no effect at all. I'm off before they can get their bearings. Ive had multiple carriers try and jump me and even a MOM. 3) If a carrier jumps in when im in an Arazu/lach well - its **** anyway. Its drones will flap around stupidly whilst he tries to lock above 3km. So the proposed carrier nerf means nothing to me and how i operate as im off in the opposite direction at the slightest sniff of a carrier. Quote:** Great of you to talk up the new design guy's ideas when they play directly into the hands of your hype/mega/domi/gal Recon pilot's plans for making isk with no risk, but not so great for all of the players that skilled for a year or more just to get a ship that costs 5-10x what your battleships do while gaining nothing more than a stronger tank. Conspiracy!!!!! 1) As has been proven - the nerf would not profit me. IF anything it would slightly the opposite as I have a carrier I intended to get round to training one day. 2)It has a lot more then 'just a stronge tank' as discussed in the OP 3)Isk for no risk isnt really what im about. More - killing the unkillable. (that sound pretentious I know) 4)I was not 'supporting the dev' as much as trying to point out how hysterical people are being. They lack clarity SKUNK ps un nerf the privs ya buggers!
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2007.10.22 22:54:00 - [70] Originally by: Lazuran Originally by: Le Skunk stuff ... Dude, 1 year ago most of the people who are voicing their disgust over CCP's intentions, already had their Carriers. It seems like CCP wants to listen to the whines of those noobs who are going to leave the game after 7 months anyway and screw over those old players who have been paying subscription for multiple accounts for 4+ years. If they think it's a good idea for their business, they should go ahead ... I know that it will be good for my wallet, health and spare time. Well 1 year was just a figure off the top of my head. Seeing as it is bothering people - I will change the tiel to 2 years. The points made in the OP stand regardless of chronological nit picks SKUNK
Louis DelaBlanche Cosmic Odyssey YouWhat	Posted - 2007.10.22 23:01:00 - [71] Personally, i think the changes to drone AI is a better solution to the "problem" (which i didnt quite understand their resoning for) then the carrier & ms specific change. Since drones will now be able to have their behavior decided by the pilot, why not simply make it so fighters cannot be set to autoagress when not assigned? That way theres both an incentive to assign fighters but not one that renders their offensive capability useless without others to assign them to. As far as I know with this change, if it comes, EVE will be the first example, in Sci-Fi or RL, where a carrier isnt a practical offensive platform. It wont deal with the issue of blobs as a whole as their proliferation is merely a symptom & a natural extention to the prevailing theory that getting the most of the biggest ships you can into a fight will ultimately win the day. That wont change with this change. Itl be afurther blow to the general point in owning a mothership, as each time theyre changed they seem to become more relagated to lowsec smartbomb gatecamper as thats the onlyplace their price can be "justified".
ThaMa Gebir Gallente Raddick Explorations Executive Outcomes	Posted - 2007.10.22 23:11:00 - [72] Originally by: Kcel Chim Originally by: ThaMa Gebir friendly reply As you said its in the hands of the devs to decide upon carrier changes. People will adapt or leave, they always threaten or do. As far as the lag goes, it has been constantly getting worse with little settlement times but back in the days you could actually think about a 100 vs 100 fight where everyone saw the field and could activate mods. However seeing we are both still here, amongst many of the other "old schoolers" i have no doubt it wasnt and still isnt all that bad. Otherwise we would have chanceled sub already. I personally forsee far more problems of this kind in the future. Where fundamental problems like lag and code issues simply cant be fixed and get tried to bypass by hotfixing ships. However advertising specialisation + longtime endgame ships (be it capital or t2) will punish all those who have just one high skp char. Best would be to get atleast 4 accounts each specialized to one race pvp wise and a 5th acc for industry. Then ure prepared for any storm which may come ! Omg im actually advertising for Power of two now :p Ccp should start to pay us oldtimers a pension if we are doing the marketing now. Well all in all I think it is a testament to CCPs ideas and game they have created to consider that we are actually still here. Yes the lag has been getting worse but I also remember the times when Tribal souls was attacked by BOB then ASCN, in Paragon soul. (There is a video of it somewhere, BOB easter I think it was), the fight was huge, my computer was pants but it was still nowhere near as laggy as it is today. I think that was due to a lot less drones, not as much of a blob fight than there are today, not to mention the amount of capital ships (i.e. none) that appeared for such fights. Well My personal specialisation in Eve is to be effective in all ships (tech 1 only, not including caps) of all races with special concentration in Gallente ships. Yes this Char is my only one really (I do have alts but they were silly tests/for a break) that I use, and he can fly most t1 ships (all races battleships) and most t2 ships of the gallente. It has taken a long time I will agree but boy is it nice to be able to buy virtually anything off the market wherever I am and be able to use it. On the other part, yes I wish CCP could pay us a pension, I would love a timeshare apartment on Gallente prime to go with it, and perhaps a season pass guaranteed every year for the alliance tourney in jove space with ringside seats etc... ---------------------------- Confirmed heaviest member of RDEX........ Hah, no more hijacks here.
Kcel Chim Caldari Arcane Technologies The Five	Posted - 2007.10.22 23:12:00 - [73] Originally by: Le Skunk Originally by: Lazuran Originally by: Le Skunk stuff ... Dude, 1 year ago most of the people who are voicing their disgust over CCP's intentions, already had their Carriers. It seems like CCP wants to listen to the whines of those noobs who are going to leave the game after 7 months anyway and screw over those old players who have been paying subscription for multiple accounts for 4+ years. If they think it's a good idea for their business, they should go ahead ... I know that it will be good for my wallet, health and spare time. Well 1 year was just a figure off the top of my head. Seeing as it is bothering people - I will change the tiel to 2 years. The points made in the OP stand regardless of chronological nit picks SKUNK Your original post was a smart designed troll post ill give you that but it still has major flaws. One beeing the assumption that its ok to nerf something which wasnt there x years ago and is still slightly usefull "just because it still exists in some form". You could raise the same argument that if you cut down the horsepower on every sportscar to 10 a 16th century horsewagon driver would still be happy about the "uber car". Fact is ccp released something and ppl got used to it and put their trust in ccp. For me its not really about the isk nor about the actual use of a carrier, like you i have one i barely use and which ill still use for the same purposes i do now. However its a question of trusting the devs to get something right in the first place and to be sensible in fixing stuff. CCP advertised a longtime skilltraining ship sucking up alot of time (even isk is time spend grinding) to get to the "precious". They even advertised the "precious" when it was not as shiney as the originally thought it could be and moved it into the limelight. Now there and attracting more and more of the wanted attention they change it once again in an eyeblink. Burning everyone who trusted their vision for this shiptype. Not just that, they also gave no reason for the quiet odd change, nor did they indicate it somewhere along the road "hey pals carriers are 3 months down the road not working as intended we might modify them". Instead they wait for a year to pass till everyone has maxed out skills. Bad move. Last but not least i would maybe even consider the changes with the same shouldershrugging you offer if they actually would really bring any benefit or "work" in the current gamemechanics. Assigning fighters is all but impossible with the crappy interface, sitting at a pos is very boring, trusting ppl with your stuff is okay for me, just maybe there should not be a dozend bugs dropping your fighters like flies or getting them all cramped up. But the carrier guys imo are not the really screwed guys. Its more all those who invested in mothership bpos, mothership production or a mothership itself. They find themself with large amounts of cash in something you will most likely not get rid of, especially if you bought it for 25 bln. I can understand their anger and i can once again only say that they missplaced their trust in ccp. The lection to be learned should be "dont specialize beyond level 4 unless a ship or module needs it or if its one of the old core skills and try to spread your skillpoints if you find yourself maxed out" As others pointed out how do you think a wow subscriber would react if he hits 70 and finds out his dps char gets turned into a heal only char ? Same type of nerf, different game, same reaction.
Enkryption	Posted - 2007.10.22 23:14:00 - [74] 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. I am going to have to agree with this man. The thousand drones being deployed from a capital blob simultaneously causes absolutely zero lag according to CCP. Also, having a support ship that is supposed be just that, taking an offensive role such as blobing a PoS with drones to take out PoS mods was fully intentional and/or pure genius on the players tactics, especially since PoS's so not fire at drones unless the guns are being controlled.
ThaMa Gebir Gallente Raddick Explorations Executive Outcomes	Posted - 2007.10.22 23:17:00 - [75] Edited by: ThaMa Gebir on 22/10/2007 23:20:45 Edited by: ThaMa Gebir on 22/10/2007 23:17:39 Kcel, while you do have a strong argument there I must admit...... Actually forget it, I do not have the vocabulary to explain my feelings on this part. Originally by: Enkryption I am going to have to agree with this man. The thousand drones being deployed from a capital blob simultaneously causes absolutely zero lag according to CCP. Also, having a support ship that is supposed be just that, taking an offensive role such as blobing a PoS with drones to take out PoS mods was fully intentional and/or pure genius on the players tactics, especially since PoS's so not fire at drones unless the guns are being controlled. While it may not cause "lag" on the servers themselves, think as to what it does to the computers that have to display said drones, even if said drones are not on overview it will still kill virtually any computer you come across. ---------------------------- Confirmed heaviest member of RDEX........ Hah, no more hijacks here.
Reem Fairchild Minmatar Republic University	Posted - 2007.10.22 23:24:00 - [76] One of those rare moments when I agree with Le Skunk.
Kcel Chim Caldari Arcane Technologies The Five	Posted - 2007.10.22 23:30:00 - [77] Originally by: ThaMa Gebir Edited by: ThaMa Gebir on 22/10/2007 23:17:39 Kcel, while you do have a strong argument there I must admit...... Actually forget it, I do not have the vocabulary to explain my feelings on this part. i could come up myself with prolly 10 things i would like to see changed about carriers or motherships. However none of it would be as shattering as this planned change which atleast to my understanding of the game wont make much of a difference in how "uberblob 0.0" combat will go. A 100 carrier blob on a gate lagging out the whole grid will just be replaced by a 100 bs blob or 100 t2 bs blob (they do more dmg). The proposed changes are like saying we simply remove battleships from the game, everyone will turn up in cruisers or something else. Thats the nature of the current gameplay. Blob gate, Blob pos, Blob system. Despite everyone agreeing how bad this whole lag is and how sucky it is to fight with 400 ppl in one system and 40 carriers you dont see one of the alliances actually jumping their shadow and trying to make a deal or treaty. Winning always counts first for them and hence even if carriers are burned down to some support role you really think the very same ppl wont find another flavour of the month ? Conclusion: the carrier and the moms are just a scapegoat. They are not the problem. The three core problems are "gameplay objectives" "lag" and "incentives for playerdecentralization". None of these core problems get even remotely touched by this change, not even lag since assigning fighters actually generates more lag then controlling 15 yourself. I cant put it better so excuse me if some of it remains unclear.
SashaniX Gallente Center for Advanced Studies	Posted - 2007.10.23 02:46:00 - [78] Originally by: ThaMa Gebir Originally by: SashaniX Originally by: Le Skunk Its STILL would have all the points i outlined in my orignal post. It would still be a fantastic ship. If used correclty in gang it would suffer maybe a 2 or 3% drop in potential; annoying but not worthy of a 2000 post "IM LEAVING THE BUREAU... AGAIN" type whailing it is getting. 5/15 = 33% = Losing 66% of your potential DPS for a Carrier 5/25 = 20% = Losing 80% of your potential DPS for a Mothership Maybe learn some 4th grade math before you go throwing down arbitrary numbers. You need reading comp. to 5 I think, but then maybe that will not help you. In total the carrier pilot would lose nothing, except he cannot control all his drones directly himself. Think about it. So every time a mothership pilot logs in, they must first make sure that they have support in system, ready to gang invite them and accept fighter delegation if they wish to play and not be defenseless against a common battleship or HAC gang? Remember how well things worked out for the MC titan?
Reem Fairchild Minmatar Republic University	Posted - 2007.10.23 03:01:00 - [79] Edited by: Reem Fairchild on 23/10/2007 03:02:10 Originally by: SashaniX So every time a mothership pilot logs in, they must first make sure that they have support in system, ready to gang invite them and accept fighter delegation if they wish to play and not be defenseless against a common battleship or HAC gang? You think it makes more sense for a ship like that to able to operate effectively all by itself, and kill everything that comes its way, all by itself?
ZenTex Interstellar eXodus R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.10.23 03:13:00 - [80] Originally by: Le Skunk Edited by: Le Skunk on 22/10/2007 22:55:09 Imagine It is two 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 Also include: Although this carrier costs only 1 billion, the skills alone cost 1 billion too, the fitting a few 100 million and each fighter 20 million. When solo, any small gang can kill you in no time. Ideal for lazy pilots that like to sit at POSes or safes assigning drones to their gang members or repping POS mods while bored out of their skull while their mates are out there killing stuff with YOUR DPS. Non-cap pilot here. There's little a sledgehammer can't fix. If you can't fix it, you need a bigger sledgehammer. If it's unfixable, blame CCP. :p
Novemb3r Vale Heavy Industries Molotov Coalition	Posted - 2007.10.23 03:49:00 - [81] Originally by: Rawr Cristina 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. And that's the point. If you fly a carrier around by yourself you deserve to be locked down by an interceptor. You should have a support fleet of your own to take care of those annoyances. -
Cardice Makar Caldari Dark Knights of Deneb Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2007.10.23 04:09:00 - [82] The problem with this carrier... "nerf" is that it is two fold: The first relies on the premise of the change, that is, the fact that it will 'reduce the fighter bombing technique'. Which, I suppose is true. The issue at hand really questions the logic of CCP, though. What they have essentially done, is said to Fleet Commanders: You have two choices now, "Bring lots of carriers and a metric load of interceptors [ to major battles and fight them in close. [with the carriers at a friendly POD" OR "Don't bother bringing Carriers to the fleet engagement at all" Which leads to the second part of the issue: Premise of change. Basically, there will be two styles of combat [as I see it, I may be horribly wrong here]. The first will be the traditional BS attack force, with a great deal of BS and no real support, so to speak. There will be no point at all in bringing carriers to this sort of engagement as they normally strike out at the 150-170km range and the fighters are pointless there anyway. Really, all in all, a carrier as a logistics ship is fairly pointless in such an engagement as well, as the locking time is brutal enough that it isn't feasible, and the logistical value simply isn't there. Anyone capable of flying a Carrier has BS to lvl5 and should thus be flying a Fleet-fitted Battleship. The other side of things is the force that fields a vast number of Carriers combined with ALOT of interceptors. This sort of fleet will rely heavily on hit and run tactics to slice up the opposing force. The Carriers will sit at a friendly POS and delegate fighters in large numbers. The interceptors will warp in, target a BS, kill it, and leave, before the opposing force can do anything. This highly favours an agressive role and uses lag to your advantage along with screen clutter and general heat-of-battle style distraction. There's no problem with either tactic, I don't think. Either one will be fine. The issue I suppose, is that no one in their right mind would want to fight a fleet battle while sitting at a POS; and the alternative of not flying a carrier at all seems like a waste of skill training. I suspect that, on some level, this is why people are people are upset. The issue though, is that carriers are not that overpowered. If you raise the issue of "pure dps" [I speak SPECIFICALLY about carriers, not moms]. They do close-range-gank-style DPS at close-range-gank-style ranges. With max skills, a Fighter does 100dps, and with 5dcu [who would fit 5, I do not know] that leaves 1500 dps. Quite a bit, yes... but for the cost of well over 10x that of a gank-bs, I don't see this as being that far out of line. If the issue is lag, well, I don't suspect this will fix that much. If you have a numerically superior fighting force, you will likely default to the more aggressive [and less skill-intensive] hit-and-run style play; while if you have a medium sized force, you will likely use the BS group. The issue, however, stays. There will be groups of 300 interceptors each with 5 fighters, fighter blobbing your BS fleet. In counter, you will bring your own carrier/ceptor fleet and that will be the end of BS gangs. I feel as if I'm cutting this short, and I am, but I have work to finish and it's 1am here now. I hope you can sort out what I was trying to say from all this, as I certainly can't anymore. -Card.
Kirex Vale Heavy Industries Molotov Coalition	Posted - 2007.10.23 04:24:00 - [83] If a carrier could only do the same DPS of a Dom (except thanatos), I can GUARANTEE you will see a lot less carriers. You'd probably hear carriers being called underpowered.
Royaldo Gallente KVA Noble Inc. Institute of Cooperative Education	Posted - 2007.10.23 04:35:00 - [84] quick question. max 5 figthers, but able to hand out 10 and use 5 for self. (thats 15 total for you math**gots) What happens when your 2 buddies ctd?** Thats right. Its bound to happen cus drones never affects lagg.. Its not like ccp changed drones some time ago and blamed the changes on lagg. At all. Or bookmarks. Anyway..
Paulo Damarr	Posted - 2007.10.23 05:20:00 - [85] Somebody mentioned fleets of 40+ carriers and nothing else, It would be funny if it was possible for a carrier to assign its fighters to another carrier /sig --->Enter at your own risk<---
Futureface01 Gallente Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2007.10.23 05:20:00 - [86] The OP is an arrogant griefer bent on ruining the game for everyone else who plays it. People like him make me ill. That being said, on this particular issue I have to agree with him.
Duff Man Caldari The Nine Gates Aftermath Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.23 05:26:00 - [87] Originally by: Le Skunk Edited by: Le Skunk on 22/10/2007 22:55:09 Imagine It is two 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 Wow! What an imaginitive way to say "If it had have been this way from the start you wouldn't be complaining". The problem with said argument Mr Skunk, is that this never happened, therefore your point is invalid. It would have been interesting to see your reply to such a thread if you had have had this supposed "Logic" applied to the change to the war system that broke your beloved empire war deccing alliance... -----------------------
Greenwing SuX ltd. Rare Faction	Posted - 2007.10.23 07:04:00 - [88] Originally by: Novemb3r And that's the point. If you fly a carrier around by yourself you deserve to be locked down by an interceptor. You should have a support fleet of your own to take care of those annoyances. You are right, but what's this nerf going to change about that ? If this change would do anything about the actual problem i would agree with it, but trying to fix something that isn't broken and forgetting about the real problem is not the way to go. The only real problem are low-sec MS's.
ArmyOfMe hirr Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.10.23 07:18:00 - [89] Originally by: Kagura Nikon CCp shoudl revert the 400% HP buff capitals recieved! Do you even remember the reason the captial ships got that buff?? it was because they didnt want carriers to sit at a friendly pos delegating fighters, they wanted them on the frontline. Now please give me a single reason a carrier would sit at the frontline if this nerf happens
Ares Lightfeather Gallente	Posted - 2007.10.23 08:20:00 - [90] Blablabla, all your arguments will not change anything. Current game design enable players to make capital fleets. CCP doesn't want it. I think the important part of the dev blog is where they say Quote: 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. Whereas the solution they choose may or not be appropriate as it is now, it sure resolves the problem. Actually, as I read it, They don't care if there is less carriers than now. They could even want that to happen. And all that whining, what is it going to do ? Absolutely nothing. They - at CCP - feel that fighter-wielding capital ships need a role change from nber-solopawnmobile to support ships. This solution will probably be implemented for lack of a better one. My point is that even if somehow the whining we saw about this nerf does prevent this particular nerf to happen, another one will occur. One that might be even worse... What you guys should be thinking about is finding an alternate solution to make carriers and other cap ships into what they want those cap ships to be. -- Siggie ! Come back here ! -- Originally by: Victor Valka Originally by: MotherMoon well a drone UI is a bit of an artist job Drone AI is obviously done by an artist too. One that is heavily into abstract
Zeoliter Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.10.23 10:32:00 - [91] Le Skunk fails on teh forum as he does in Eve in general.
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2007.10.23 11:48:00 - [92] Originally by: ZenTex Also include: Although this carrier costs only 1 billion, the skills alone cost 1 billion too, the fitting a few 100 million and each fighter 20 million. When solo, any small gang can kill you in no time. Ideal for lazy pilots that like to sit at POSes or safes assigning drones to their gang members or repping POS mods while bored out of their skull while their mates are out there killing stuff with YOUR DPS. Skill books and fittings for a dreadnought cost similar (and indeed cross over at certain points i believe). Dreadnought has limited uses. Dreadnought caught solo will die to a small gang in no time. Dreadnoughts are useful for bored pilots shooting at an inanimate POS. People are not squinniying about dreads. Carriers already do die if unsupported against small gangs. I was in on a kill of one not so long ago - fighters flapped around shooting at people who simply warped off in rotation and killed it. If it had had support - it wouldn't have died. So reducing the number of drones usable unsuported makes no difference. Originally by: Duff Man Wow! What an imaginitive way to say "If it had have been this way from the start you wouldn't be complaining". The problem with said argument Mr Skunk, is that this never happened, therefore your point is invalid. It would have been interesting to see your reply to such a thread if you had have had this supposed "Logic" applied to the change to the war system that broke your beloved empire war deccing alliance... The argument was designed to remind carrier pilots that even with a tiny nerfing - they are still flying an awesome ship. However your comparison with the privateer alliance, wherby CCP specifically and publicly changed a game mechanic because of us does not hold. If the carrier was reduced to 1 light drone and 1 low slot then it would be a fair comparission. With the privateers, CCP nerfed a new idea, an upset to the stranglehold of 0.0 bully boy politics, and the last hope for an independently minded pilot, and a bucket load of fun in an often boring game. You would have thought they would have been crying out for player driven content - but no. We had many interesting plans for the future which would have further upset the applecart... all gone... like tears in the rain. With the Privateer nerf, CCP effectivly ruined hundered of hours of time spent setting up the corp, alliance, PR, and attracting some of the best PVP corps in the game to the alliance. They wasted a lot of time. Thats real time spent. You lot saying "IVE BEEN TRAINING FOR 6 MONTHS" make out youve been running up and down steps and punching big slabs of meet with "eye of the tiger" playing behind you. In reality youve had a little timer running whilst youve been in the bath/asleep/eating junk food. Its been suggested that you might get a 2-3% nerf for the total capability of your ship. Time to put the toys back in the pram people. SKUNK
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2007.10.23 11:58:00 - [93] Edited by: Le Skunk on 23/10/2007 12:03:39 Originally by: Kcel Chim Your original post was a smart designed troll post ill give you that but it still has major flaws. One beeing the assumption that its ok to nerf something which wasnt there x years ago and is still slightly usefull "just because it still exists in some form". You could raise the same argument that if you cut down the horsepower on every sportscar to 10 a 16th century horsewagon driver would still be happy about the "uber car". This is indicative of the problem. Your nerfing comparison with the sports car gave the equivalent of 2.5% of the cars previous horsepower. YOUR CARRIER IS NOT LOSING 97.5% OF ITS POTENTIAL Even at those speeds, your mystery car still protects you from the weather, still gets you from a to b without braving public tranpsort, still provides light and heat, still enables more then one person to travel, still can carry large amount of items etc etc If you car owner was told that his 120mph capable car was only allowed to travel at 100mph on public roads sure he can grumble a little. But hes still doing 100mph out of the rain, with a stash of guns in the boot and his bird in the back seat doing the crossword Quote: Fact is ccp released something and ppl got used to it and put their trust in ccp. For me its not really about the isk nor about the actual use of a carrier, like you i have one i barely use and which ill still use for the same purposes i do now. However its a question of trusting the devs to get something right in the first place and to be sensible in fixing stuff. LOL Despite seeing things being nerfed since the game began, your suddenly suprised CCP have stuck their beak in? As Ive been told many times - Its CCP's game ... not yours.. not mine.... SKUNK
Jenna Shame	Posted - 2007.10.23 14:57:00 - [94] Originally by: Jenny Spitfire 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. :) When the new Jenny Spitfire agrees with you, you must be wrong.
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2007.10.23 16:08:00 - [95] Originally by: Jenna Shame Originally by: Jenny Spitfire 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. :) When the new Jenny Spitfire agrees with you, you must be wrong. The 'new' jenny spitfire is not 'new' at all. Thats all the clues im going to give the community. SKUNK
Dionisius Gallente Critical Analysis Te-Ka	Posted - 2007.10.23 16:22:00 - [96] Originally by: Le Skunk Edited by: Le Skunk on 22/10/2007 22:55:09 Imagine It is two 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 I am very ashamed, indeed, in fact having spent hours ratting for the damn skills and actually spending nearly one billion in them just to know that any domi can do what the carrier will do after its nerfed to death... man am i ashamed of criticizing a very very bad ideia. Dude 2 day old newbs might aswell be in megathrons and ravens and abbadons kicking the s**t out 2003 veterans that took years to train their skills and be flying the ships they do fly nowadays. ... on the other hand, maybe we could just flame you for this topic. _____________________________________
Jenna Shame	Posted - 2007.10.23 16:32:00 - [97] Originally by: Le Skunk Originally by: Jenna Shame Originally by: Jenny Spitfire 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. :) When the new Jenny Spitfire agrees with you, you must be wrong. The 'new' jenny spitfire is not 'new' at all. Thats all the clues im going to give the community. SKUNK Dont' care what carebear purchased the account. They are just about always on the worst side of an argument, unless you like to carebear.
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2007.10.23 17:07:00 - [98] Originally by: Dionisius Originally by: Le Skunk Edited by: Le Skunk on 22/10/2007 22:55:09 Imagine It is two 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 I am very ashamed, indeed, in fact having spent hours ratting for the damn skills and actually spending nearly one billion in them just to know that any domi can do what the carrier will do after its nerfed to death... man am i ashamed of criticizing a very very bad ideia. ... on the other hand, maybe we could just flame you for this topic. Very poor. In so many ways. Especially the reference to the worst attempt at a flame ever. 1)Many of the skills you've trained are interchangeable with other capital ships.. so not so bad. 2) Since when did a dominix * Have a corporate hanger array * Have a ship maintanence bay * Have a jump drive have 500,000 plus hitpoints * be able to use capital modules * be able to use fighters * be able to assign fighters * be able to use warfare link modules Assuming a nerf hits - Ill take you on in your dominix with me in a thanatos. Should be a real close fight yeah? /me puts the toys back into your pram SKUNK

Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [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.