EVE Search - WHAT THE HELL?

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

WHAT THE HELL?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 2 post(s)
Angor The JORG Corporation Methods of Mayhem Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.23 18:43:00 - [1] Whats goin on with the new sisi patch, seems the carrier nerf is already in effect or is this a bug? I have launched 5 fighters, my supposed limit.. assigned them to a gang member and then i get the following message trying to launch 5 more... 18:40:40 Hint You don't have enough bandwidth to launch Dragonfly. You need 0.0 Mbit/s but Dragonfly requires 25.0 Mbit/s. Wtf is goin on, is there a new skill for increasing "bandwidth"? _______________________________ [ 2007.06.07 21:07:22 ] FrankyWave > ransom me guys I am joining XElas !!!
CyberChick The Ghost Riders Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.23 19:17:00 - [2] I don't believe this is the nerf - I am anti cap nerf btw, but I logged in my carrier pilot and another char at the same time, was able to launch 12 medium drones (all i was carrying at the time) that worked fine - no limit of 5 drones. I launched 5 dragonflys and delegated them to my alt, tried to launch 5 more fighters and was told no more bandwidth. Basically I think the devs have put a placeholder amount of bandwidth amount and put it to 125 for both motherships and carriers to make it work with drones. I expect they will increase that later this week probably to 375 for carriers (15 fighters - with drone control units as the limit of the number you can launch) and 625 for motherships (25 fighters)
Mundem Pashdale Serenity Prime Praesidium Libertatis	Posted - 2007.10.23 19:23:00 - [3] CCP broke Eve. Again

CCP Chronotis	Posted - 2007.10.23 19:44:00 - [4] We are still absorbing feedback and debating what route we want to go with the carrier fixes. We have not yet applied the effect modifiers on the base attributes to the carriers until we know what direction we want to go. The only thing on sisi currently is the base drone bandwidth attribute of all ships. Please remember that sisi gets updated almost daily now and until we notify you that the changes are ready for testing, assume they are unfinished and try not to speculate or jump to conclusions until we blog about the overall goal and the finalised changes being made (though it is completely natural to do so, it will lead to premature and unfounded gossip as is the nature of the forums).

Yu Haul	Posted - 2007.10.23 19:51:00 - [5] CCP, you are forcing carriers to stick with a pos forever. If sometimes they used to just attack the pos structures then now they will 100% of time on a pos in pos wars. Its not fair.
Lin Dei Gallente University of Caille	Posted - 2007.10.23 20:04:00 - [6] This sentence: Originally by: CCP_Logical_Writing_Department 18:40:40 Hint You don't have enough bandwidth to launch Dragonfly. You need 0.0 Mbit/s but Dragonfly requires 25.0 Mbit/s. Should be changed to this: Quote: 18:40:40 Hint You don't have enough bandwidth to launch Dragonfly. You have 0.0 Mbit/s left but Dragonfly requires 25.0 Mbit/s. ------------------ If you see me post it's because either: 1) Silly forums made me do it 2) Because I was too lazy to change characters 3) Because I wanted to 4) <insert mod comment here>
Valandril Caldari Resurrection R i s e	Posted - 2007.10.23 20:08:00 - [7] Edited by: Valandril on 23/10/2007 20:09:23 Originally by: CCP Chronotis We are still absorbing feedback and debating what route we want to go with the carrier fixes. Then fix drones ai, instead making insanly stupid ideas. Anyway i already canceled all my accounts so why i care ? --- Battlecarriers - lets move carriers to the front line !
Rinaldo Titano Caldari Domus Fatalis Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2007.10.23 20:23:00 - [8] Edited by: Rinaldo Titano on 23/10/2007 20:23:18 Originally by: CCP Chronotis We are still absorbing feedback and debating what route we want to go with the carrier fixes. We have not yet applied the effect modifiers on the base attributes to the carriers until we know what direction we want to go. The only thing on sisi currently is the base drone bandwidth attribute of all ships. Please remember that sisi gets updated almost daily now and until we notify you that the changes are ready for testing, assume they are unfinished and try not to speculate or jump to conclusions until we blog about the overall goal and the finalised changes being made (though it is completely natural to do so, it will lead to premature and unfounded gossip as is the nature of the forums). Hey, i gve a hint for free..... Dont think about fixing carriers.. THE CARRIERS ARE OK!!!!!!! Take the time and fix what is broken, for example enorm damage bonus to drones on a moros, or how u can make the pilgrim usefull again....
Trass Caldari DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.10.23 20:23:00 - [9] Originally by: CCP Chronotis We are still absorbing feedback and debating what route we want to go with the carrier fixes. Dont fix something that arent broken. If you are bored, fix this http://myeve.eve-online.com/updates/knownissues.asp
Degga Caldari	Posted - 2007.10.23 20:31:00 - [10] Originally by: CyberChick I don't believe this is the nerf - I am anti cap nerf btw, but I logged in my carrier pilot and another char at the same time, was able to launch 12 medium drones (all i was carrying at the time) that worked fine - no limit of 5 drones. I launched 5 dragonflys and delegated them to my alt, tried to launch 5 more fighters and was told no more bandwidth. Basically I think the devs have put a placeholder amount of bandwidth amount and put it to 125 for both motherships and carriers to make it work with drones. I expect they will increase that later this week probably to 375 for carriers (15 fighters - with drone control units as the limit of the number you can launch) and 625 for motherships (25 fighters) well that wont work cuz that mean a carrier or MS will have the bandwith to launch like 50 small/med drones way i see it they will need to lower the bandwith req. for figthers since there is no other ship then a carrier/mom who have a drone bay over 3000 m3
Leuko Uratne Alcatraz Inc.	Posted - 2007.10.23 20:39:00 - [11] Originally by: Degga Originally by: CyberChick I don't believe this is the nerf - I am anti cap nerf btw, but I logged in my carrier pilot and another char at the same time, was able to launch 12 medium drones (all i was carrying at the time) that worked fine - no limit of 5 drones. I launched 5 dragonflys and delegated them to my alt, tried to launch 5 more fighters and was told no more bandwidth. Basically I think the devs have put a placeholder amount of bandwidth amount and put it to 125 for both motherships and carriers to make it work with drones. I expect they will increase that later this week probably to 375 for carriers (15 fighters - with drone control units as the limit of the number you can launch) and 625 for motherships (25 fighters) well that wont work cuz that mean a carrier or MS will have the bandwith to launch like 50 small/med drones way i see it they will need to lower the bandwith req. for figthers since there is no other ship then a carrier/mom who have a drone bay over 3000 m3 It will work. Amount of drones is still governed by the "Drones" skill, the "Carrier" skill and the amount of Drone Control Units fitted. For proof look at a Vexor. It has 75mbit/s bandwith, but it cannot launch more than five small drones (25mbit/s).
D3a7h Genco Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.10.23 20:43:00 - [12] Edited by: D3a7h on 23/10/2007 20:44:50 If this happens I am quiting eve forever..i did not just spend the past year training for a carrier for this to happen. CCP learn from American brands and listen to consumer idea..thats the best way to improve your product. Nerf this and you nerf your amount of players on eve-online. That is all thanks. EDIT: was brought up on my forums consider the usage of carriers in wars in real life. Carriers are able to defend themselves, assign fighters, and do full offensive.
Enraged Mado Caldari Shadow Assasins Dark Matter Coalition	Posted - 2007.10.23 21:13:00 - [13] Originally by: Rinaldo Titano THE CARRIERS ARE OK!!!!!!! Nuff said. -------
Danjira Ryuujin Caldari	Posted - 2007.10.23 21:20:00 - [14] Originally by: D3a7h EDIT: was brought up on my forums consider the usage of carriers in wars in real life. Carriers are able to defend themselves, assign fighters, and do full offensive. The real world doesn't care about balance. Go acquire vasts amounts of wealth and get your own carrier and wtfpwn people in the real world then. Amarr - Annoying the Eve Community since 2005
Alex Under 0utbreak	Posted - 2007.10.23 21:44:00 - [15] Originally by: CCP Chronotis We are still absorbing feedback and debating what route we want to go with the carrier fixes. We have not yet applied the effect modifiers on the base attributes to the carriers until we know what direction we want to go. The only thing on sisi currently is the base drone bandwidth attribute of all ships. Please remember that sisi gets updated almost daily now and until we notify you that the changes are ready for testing, assume they are unfinished and try not to speculate or jump to conclusions until we blog about the overall goal and the finalised changes being made (though it is completely natural to do so, it will lead to premature and unfounded gossip as is the nature of the forums). You've already made these changes on SISI. When did this 'idea' from a dev blog suddenly become an 'implementation'? Having CCP say: "...this is just an idea we're thinking about...", nothing concrete and then have it on SiSi 2 days later makes me feel very much lied to. You've apparently already made up minds to change carriers Carriers don't need to be changed. How about you concentrate on fixing the other 999 bugs in the game first. How about you start with this thread first --> http://myeve.eve-online.com/updates/knownissues.asp
Megarea STK Scientific	Posted - 2007.10.23 21:58:00 - [16] Originally by: Alex Under You've already made these changes on SISI. When did this 'idea' from a dev blog suddenly become an 'implementation'? Having CCP say: "...this is just an idea we're thinking about...", nothing concrete and then have it on SiSi 2 days later makes me feel very much lied to. You've apparently already made up minds to change carriers I think that sums it up nicely. "Remember that this is still just an idea " doesn't end up on SiSi 2 days later. Please don't lie to us - we really don't like it.
Tula Elrich	Posted - 2007.10.23 22:00:00 - [17] Originally by: Valandril Edited by: Valandril on 23/10/2007 20:09:23 Originally by: CCP Chronotis We are still absorbing feedback and debating what route we want to go with the carrier fixes. Then fix drones ai, instead making insanly stupid ideas. Anyway i already canceled all my accounts so why i care ? your right! GO AWAY.
Tula Elrich	Posted - 2007.10.23 22:04:00 - [18] Originally by: Megarea Originally by: Alex Under You've already made these changes on SISI. When did this 'idea' from a dev blog suddenly become an 'implementation'? Having CCP say: "...this is just an idea we're thinking about...", nothing concrete and then have it on SiSi 2 days later makes me feel very much lied to. You've apparently already made up minds to change carriers I think that sums it up nicely. "Remember that this is still just an idea " doesn't end up on SiSi 2 days later. Please don't lie to us - we really don't like it. what are you people talking about????? this sin't the change form the dev blog, this is a carrier not having the bandwidth to use more than 5 fighters. the dev blog stated that you use use 5 your self and send out 5, this person is having a problem with putting 5 on a friend and then having no bandwdith left to use any more. THEY ARE SEPERATE! THERE IS NO... aww never mind, you people wouldn't listen anyways. p.s. I'm anti carrier change but this isn't the carrier change this is the drone bandwidth, you people are crazy. as for me I'll stick around carrier change for not, I'm not going to let it effect me into canceling my accounts when it's not done yet.
Lucre STK Scientific Black-Out	Posted - 2007.10.23 22:07:00 - [19] So ... how come we've been debating and suggesting Amarr/laser fixes for a year or more without anything managing to happen except the Amarr recons being nerfed? And yet a carriers and mothership "fix" can go from "just an idea we're thinking about" to implementation on Sisi in 2 days? Did a dev's character get ganked in lowsec by a mothership or something? If not, how come other balance changes need "long and careful study" but this one can just be hurled into test almost overnight, even before folk are still signing up to object to it!
Claska Amarr Rising Tibetan Star Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2007.10.23 22:10:00 - [20] Wow, fastest Dev blog to Implementation i've ever seen, funny how its not something we want that happens quickly.
Icome4u Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L	Posted - 2007.10.23 22:32:00 - [21] Edited by: Icome4u on 23/10/2007 22:33:09 Originally by: CCP Chronotis We are still absorbing feedback and debating what route we want to go with the carrier fixes. We have not yet applied the effect modifiers on the base attributes to the carriers until we know what direction we want to go. The only thing on sisi currently is the base drone bandwidth attribute of all ships. Please remember that sisi gets updated almost daily now and until we notify you that the changes are ready for testing, assume they are unfinished and try not to speculate or jump to conclusions until we blog about the overall goal and the finalised changes being made (though it is completely natural to do so, it will lead to premature and unfounded gossip as is the nature of the forums). I'll make it easy for you to absorb. Go with the nerf/idea/balance and you will lose a lot of people. Now which way do you want to go? Anger 90% of the community + lose A LOT of money. or Please the community + not need anal lube at fanfest.
Ilvan	Posted - 2007.10.23 22:40:00 - [22] Originally by: Icome4u Anger 90% of the community Have any proof for that claim? I'd bet most players don't care one way or the other.
Mundem Pashdale Serenity Prime Praesidium Libertatis	Posted - 2007.10.23 22:45:00 - [23] Drones need fixing befor carriers AND drone ships get nerfed. That's key; at the moment all CCP are doing is antagonsing many of their older players. But I guess new accounts make more money then we do, so we don't matter that much to them Should I renew my accounts (only two of them)? I'm not sure yet. I pray that things are balanced and the devs START TALKING to us again, instead of hiding behind things and ignoring us. I MISS dev input, and I MISS GMs giving a damnd
MOS DEF 0utbreak	Posted - 2007.10.23 23:04:00 - [24] Where does this stupid idea of FIXING carriers come from anyways. Carrier are not broken. They are far from overpowered. They are very damn easy to kill with just a bunch of hacs and recons. Noone complained about them but CCP thinks they need to fix them considering they finally managed to get them on the frontline wich they tried for a long long time. So much stuff broken in this game that needs fixing but stupid CCP starts screwing up stuff that actually works. Really a strange behavior. If you are bold enough tho think: We do this and the players will simply have to suck it up. Think SWG guys. If you cannot admit that you messed up that's one thing but i wonder what you'll think once your playerbase is running away.
CyberChick The Ghost Riders Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.23 23:08:00 - [25] I know everyone is angry, but please read my earlier reply - this cannot currently be the nerf/idea - I launched 5 fighters delegated and couldn't launch more, plus I also launched a dozen hammerhead 1s so there is no limit applied to how many drones you can have only the amount of drone control units online and the bandwidth used - so basically its just a placeholder stat atm.
Ketch Kan Genbuku. Daisho Syndicate	Posted - 2007.10.23 23:10:00 - [26] Edited by: Ketch Kan on 23/10/2007 23:11:17 if it hits TQ they will lose 5 accounts here
Phantom Slave Amarr Mozzaki United	Posted - 2007.10.23 23:12:00 - [27] Everybody that's *****ing about how it was implemented on Sisi already, please don't make an ass of yourselves and actually read the dev post just above yours. The 'Carrier Fix/nerf' has NOT been put in place. They're simply setting up bandwidth and haven't finished implementing everything for carriers yet. ____________________ Pirating in EVE is like kicking a squirrel and stealing his food. The squirrel hates you afterwards, but it's fun none the less.
MOS DEF 0utbreak	Posted - 2007.10.23 23:16:00 - [28] Originally by: Phantom Slave Everybody that's *****ing about how it was implemented on Sisi already, please don't make an ass of yourselves and actually read the dev post just above yours. The 'Carrier Fix/nerf' has NOT been put in place. They're simply setting up bandwidth and haven't finished implementing everything for carriers yet. Yeah but he also states the fact that they are still considering it wich is more then shocking. I mean are they really that far away from knowing how their game works by now? Maybe they should start to think more before changing crap. No fix in the past year did actually fix things without breaking 2 more.
Cmdr Sp0ck Destructive Influence Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.10.23 23:20:00 - [29] Originally by: CCP Chronotis We are still absorbing feedback and debating what route we want to go with the carrier fixes. We have not yet applied the effect modifiers on the base attributes to the carriers until we know what direction we want to go. The only thing on sisi currently is the base drone bandwidth attribute of all ships. Please remember that sisi gets updated almost daily now and until we notify you that the changes are ready for testing, assume they are unfinished and try not to speculate or jump to conclusions until we blog about the overall goal and the finalised changes being made (though it is completely natural to do so, it will lead to premature and unfounded gossip as is the nature of the forums). There are a great many things in EVE that have been broken for so long, yet continue overlooked by CCP staff. Instead we are given nerfs to things that work decently fine. Why not look into the drone UI/interface as it could be drastically improved?? Why not look into the whole territorial conquest thing, which atm is causing more and more blob warfare, which we all know the servers can't handle. Oh wait, it's our internet connections... Isn't that way more important than turning carriers into oversized bananas? I spend time, money and effort into training a character to use a ship that then is made useless because someone smoked something bad at the company who made this great game. Are you trying to say that i'm paying to get my long term Character training made useless at random intervals? I agree with bandwidth, but not with nerfing carriers/MS as is being applied on sisi. A very big NO to that!
Davlin Lotze STK Scientific Black-Out	Posted - 2007.10.23 23:25:00 - [30] Originally by: Ilvan Originally by: Icome4u Anger 90% of the community Have any proof for that claim? I'd bet most players don't care one way or the other. Do you have a MAIN character ALT?

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

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