|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 17 post(s) |
DTee
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 09:34:00 -
[1]
I completely agree with many anti-carrier nerf opinions in this thread. Expressed alot better then i personally could have.
I would like to challenge CCP to show concrete evidence of the opinions they have brought forth in both dev blogs. I would also happily challenge then to a fleet vs cap fleet fight.
There is clear evidence that in today EVE and its lag it is hardly possible to effectively use the carriers capabilities in full on the battlefield since all it takes is 1 frigate to dampen or Jam you and a dictor to drop a bubble from that point onwards you are a master of NO TRADES.
I have alot more ideas I would like to put down here and opinions but it seems CCP has thrown all common sense ou tof the window and continue to ignore the playerbase. They insist upon making changes rather then spending those man hours in to fixing the lag or various other issues.
Clearly this is CCP gone mad in the bid to secure as many players and revenue as possible.
WAKE UP CCP.
|
DTee
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 09:52:00 -
[2]
Edited by: DTee on 24/10/2007 09:54:23
Originally by: CCP Oveur
Originally by: DTee stuff
WAKE UP CCP.
I'm actually reading every word posted here and I'd like to hear those ideas of yours.
I personally think that currently with more pressing issues carriers are fine as they are. I agree with the devblog that the carrier is a jack of all trades but clearly it is not extremely pro-efficient at any one role.
Many players have expressed opinions and presented ideas, which I find are relatively tame compared to the fighter nerf that was initially suggested.
The carrier maybe able to act as a logitics ship, a transprot ship and a damage dealer but how does removing its drone bay help remove its flexibility? It makes the carrier COMPLTELY useless.
There are other ships with roles such as Transports or Logistics. I would have thought that removing triage mode or the logistics capabilities would be a more sensible idea in my opinion. Making carriers pos hugging and forcing capital pilots to delegate fighters is clearly not the answer.
I would also like to take this opportunity once again Oveur to ask you/CCP to present evidence backing the opinions on the dev blogs. THe opinions brought forth in these dev blogs, ar ethey agreed upon by the devs in various alliances?
I can see how carrier blobs of 50 - 150 ar ebeing used in the current war that is taking place but how does that justify the nerf of the smaller corps and alliances? Since the introduction of eve why dont we see EVERY SINGLE player flying them? it is fairly obvious that they have draw backs.
I am happy with the removal of certain roles of the carrier. I personally rarely use its remote repping ability or use it myself for transport. (even more so with the t2 freighters coming in to the arena) So why take its most valuable ability?
I hope this makes sense and apologize for any mistake or inaccuracies.
|
DTee
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 10:04:00 -
[3]
Edited by: DTee on 24/10/2007 10:04:31
Originally by: Faridah stuff
Oveur,
I completely agree with the opinions expressed in Faridah's reply. What is your opinion or thoughts about that? What ideas does CCP have other then a drone nerf?
more incoming.
|
DTee
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 10:42:00 -
[4]
Edited by: DTee on 24/10/2007 10:44:36
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
Originally by: Malachon Draco
Is that the idea in practical terms (note, don't mind the numbers, just the concept?)
That's the rough idea, yes. We still have in no way started thinking about what modules to introduce, what they would do or anything of the likes, but the idea is that.
Thank you for finally providing some clear answers and detail on the changes.
If something MUST be done then, I do not mind fitting for a certain role as long as I can perform other roles too but not as well as I would be able to if I specifically fit for that role.
Conclusion, I think carriers shoudl be left alone as they are but if they NEED to be fixed badly then looking at some changes maybe the right direction.
|
DTee
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 10:56:00 -
[5]
Edited by: DTee on 24/10/2007 11:00:37 Edited by: DTee on 24/10/2007 10:58:27
Originally by: Clamn8er stuff
I would have to agree the initial dev blog with the proposal was vague and lacked enough details to ensure that the player at large got an accurate view of what might be implemented.
I am not sure whether they have just decided to take on board the feedback or originally intended to implement the changes in the solution currently being presented.
I think the lack of communication up till this point is what has upset most people, CCP's saving grace has been COMMUNICATING.
Thanks once more :)
|
DTee
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 10:59:00 -
[6]
Edited by: DTee on 24/10/2007 10:59:58
Originally by: Liv Dawn lots of stuff
You should read it there have been some insightful posts by the dev's!
OMG I know its a miracle!
|
DTee
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 11:39:00 -
[7]
Edited by: DTee on 24/10/2007 11:39:51 I think to make a mothership what it should be (a hotel docking station) the mini-pos shield carring out maintence idea is probably th ebest i'v eheard so far. That would make them just more then a fighter swarming end game ship. They could fit specifically for on grid support!
This also helped those pod jumping to the mothership to jump in to their ships within the shield.
|
DTee
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 11:56:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Matthew
Originally by: velmistr Ecco I don't like the idea of necessity of wingmen. Anyone cannot be forced to share his belongings (drones) - it should be option but not a must.
Well, this gets into the difference between a corp as a bunch of individuals who just happen to hang around the same area and agree to shoot the same stuff, and a corp as a team.
Most of the high-end corp and alliance content is geared to work best, quite rightly, with this second type of corp in mind. In a team corp, the corp would have helped you get those fighters, and the carrier itself, in the first place. Just as you would have helped your support get whatever ships they're flying. You'd also be sharing the burden of losses, regardless of which individual in the team sustained the loss.
Originally by: DTee Now that is an idea, I like. I can imagine a carrier in triage mode with a pos shield around it with 5 Interceptors taking refuge inside and getting repaired. In the midst of a raging battle....
Bravo, Sir!
IIRC, this suggestion came up for the roqual as well. The problem with it is preventing it being used in places you really don't want it to be used in. E.g., how many can you overlap around a cyno jammer? What if you park one of these things on an acceleration gate to prevent people getting into a complex? Over a gate to prevent anyone jumping out? How about plonking one in front of a station undock to trap everyone inside.
It's a nice idea, but tricky to do in a non-abusable way.
Originally by: MOS DEF I still cannot see any killboards showing any carrier solokilling stuff. That's funny because there is a lot of other different ships where you could provide such evidence quick.
Maybe because everyone else knows the power of the carrier, and choose not to engage it at all unless they're in a group large enough to do the job.
One of the characteristics of carriers solo is that they are relatively poor at forcing an engagement if the other person really wants to get away. Hence why you don't see many solo carrier kills where you would with other ship types. What you've shown is that carriers are not the best tacklers, not that they are balanced overall.
I've already commented on why killboards in general are a very poor indicator of balance.
Like a smartbomb, it cannot be deployed within a certain range 5000m of another structure.
|
|
|
|