R0NIN
Amarr
Imperium Technologies
Firmus Ixion
   |
Posted - 2007.10.24 16:59:00 -
[1]
Edited by: R0NIN on 24/10/2007 17:01:07
"but when the ship is a master of all trades, then it departs from the original design concept."
Kieron,
As a player with over 4 years experience in eve allow me to humbly disagree with yours/CCPs perceptions on carrier's capabilities.
I believe that my experience in eve puts me in unique place of not being biased towards a particular group of ships since my skill points equally distributed across eve functionality.
Carriers can be moderately effective in some areas and only somewhat effective in the others. With that said they are FAR from being the "master of all trades".
I'm not speaking in theory. Personally, I can pilot every ship in eve short of titans.
I've piloted carrier(s) extensively over the years and once again, they are FAR from what you've described as a "master of all trades".
Any, more or less properly set up gang will make carrier 100% useless.
Only one Arazu/Lachesis/Celestis - Scratch carrier's offensive and defensive capability.
About 6-7 properly set up mobile damage dealers - in majority of the cases means scratch carrier it self.
Unless you have an internal tools at your disposal that provides you with reliable data confirming that a carrier is in fact "master of all trades" I would kindly recommend listening to your player base and refraining from making statements based from what I see only on a series of assumptions.
From my numerous contacts around eve I would like to state that your player base will in fact suffer substantial hit if going through with this or similar ideas that changes game mechanics of a particular vessel in a drastic way against the wishes (from what it seems) majority of eve players.
Please note that there are a lot of players in eve with substantial amount of training vested in being able to fly a particular vessel. By introducing such a drastic changes you are in fact diminishing overall value of a particular training path player has taken. Hence real chance of taking substantial hit in player base especially when it comes to carriers with consequent "secondary" hits based on a player base loosing faith in a particular training path taken in fear of a diminished or "unstable" return on it over time.
This is my official "vote" against this proposal. The logic/arguments presented by CCP in reference to carriers flawed in it's core.
Before changing the ship please, revisit your perceptions/assumptions as to it capabilities and listen to players who actually fly them on a daily basis.
With best regards. R0NIN.
EDIT1: Pardon, my original intent was to post this reply into the other/101 page monster of a thread. 
So this reply is out of place in this one, thanks god 
|