EVE Search - New Dev Blog, Nozh on Carriers Redux, Part II

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

New Dev Blog, Nozh on Carriers Redux, Part II

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 36 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 17 post(s)
ArmyOfMe hirr Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.10.24 10:36:00 - [271] Originally by: MrTriggerHappy If you reduce the amount of fighters that can be fielded by a solo carrier, will there be fitting options to allow us to fit weaponry? I dont think they are changing that anymore from what ive read in the blog
Sinder Ohm Infinite Improbability Inc Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2007.10.24 10:36:00 - [272] I also think that CCP are not going through with this due to the cancelation of accounts. I havent seen an answer yet to the question if CCP could log on TQ with a carrier gang that is not supported and they fight a standerd ewar roaming gang with some bs support. I beleive once you have done this you will see things more from our point of view.
Ztrain Evolution Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.10.24 10:38:00 - [273] Originally by: CCP Zulupark 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. Is it just me or did we just get a release of the CCP dev moto? Z Originally by: CCP Zulupark 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.
DTee 0utbreak	Posted - 2007.10.24 10:42:00 - [274] 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.
Cevin North	Posted - 2007.10.24 10:45:00 - [275] CCP, hank you for taking all our ideas into consideration. I am glad you guy`s did. From what ive read in your post, and i hope i read it all correctly, it looks like we can keep all our carriers abilities, just not at the same time. Like (for example) have a huge ship bay, and leave 15 fighters at home, or have a huge fighterbay and leave the ships home... or do something inbetween and do a little of both I peronatly do not think that is a bad idea, but please keep in mind that if we switch roles we need more modules at multiple places, so drop the price of the fighters a bit would be verry helpfull. It also wouldnt hurt as much if we loose a 5 mil isk assigned fighter compared to a 20 mil one if we need to assign. a idea might be using the assigning possibility with fleet command module`s thatthere is a "carrier command module that needs to be fitted in a midslot" and let the role of that change. (do give the extra midslot though).

CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2007.10.24 10:48:00 - [276] Originally by: MrTriggerHappy Originally by: CCP Zulupark As Oveur posted before, we'd like to keep the same skills as are now, and preferably not introduce a slew of new skills. We aren't taking away the "Jack of all trades"-ness of the carrier, you would still be able to do everything you do now, except you'd have to fit for it specifically. You wouldn't be able to do it all off of one fitting. Quite possibly this will beef up the carriers individual strengths, but as stated before, you would have to select which ones to beef and which ones to sacrifice each time. Well that answers one part, but what about the other. If you reduce the amount of fighters that can be fielded by a solo carrier, will there be fitting options to allow us to fit weaponry? Something like flak cannons* would be good as a close range anti support weapon, so the carrier has a good chance to escape.. just spouting ideas here.. *Sort of similar to the "Goalkeeper" system fitted on HMS invincile Where does it say in the blog that that's what we're doing?

Ma Zhiqiang Minmatar Huang Yinglong Namtz'aar k'in	Posted - 2007.10.24 10:51:00 - [277] I think the new changes to carriers and motherships are generally good. Just make sure the lag and bugs get sorted... ;)
Mersault Gallente LFC FreeFall Securities	Posted - 2007.10.24 10:55:00 - [278] >Where does it say in the blog that that's what we're doing? Zulu, is your point about a solo carrier not being able to field all his fighters wihtout delegating, or are you responding to a suggestion of a different way of a carrier having defensive capability?
Kerfira	Posted - 2007.10.24 10:56:00 - [279] Originally by: CCP Oveur We have quite a number of programmers and millions of dollars working on lag, I have covered this numerous times in my dev blogs. It's ranging from optimizations and fixes which impair performance to rewriting our graphics engine and totally replacing our server cluster in early 2008 with supercomputing technology such as Infiniband. Have you given any thoughts to blobbing? IMHO, lag in itself is not the problem. It is merely a symptom of the real problem, ie. that people bring themselves, their friends, their allies, their not-so-good friends, and people they don't like, to every battle they fight. A large part of that is because of POS warfare, and not least the changes you've made to POS warfare lately with shootable structures and station services. You've been promising us to solve lag for years now using all kinds of technical magic, so pardon me if I don't believe your current spell will work either. IMHO, what you need to implement is some kind of crowd control so bringing more people is not a win button.... Lets bring this game back to being a game of strategy, tactics and skill (which is not the same as skillpoints). On logistics...... You need to rethink the way logistics work if you want carriers to work in that role. What I personally think needs to be done is that the logistics functionality is decoupled from the weapons mechanics. Ie. you no longer need to lock targets to repair them. A restriction could be that people needed to be in your gang to be repaired. On triage module..... It's broken! Fair and square! Either you need to remove the 'lock in place for 10 minutes' restriction, or you need to up the self-sustaining capabilities when in triage mode massively. Currently using triage is equivalent of a dead carrier. Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
DTee 0utbreak	Posted - 2007.10.24 10:56:00 - [280] 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 :)

Liv Dawn PPN United Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2007.10.24 10:58:00 - [281] didnt read through but some ideas. it sounds very logical that carriers have to be changed since as recognized they are way to nice. besides they really shine in large groups and gaining of scale effects like no other ship. but: making people to asign fighters to others seems an unlucky solution. it will force more people to come to fleet fights which was planned to be discouraged, wasnt it? no prob in small scales but having another 100 people in fleets on both sides is nothing anybody really wants. besides frigates cant jump with carriers only with ms and clone vat bays. so how do you bring in your wingman? remake carriers by specialising them and at the same time offering other possibilities. many people trained for the carrier as a fighting vessel. so let the common carriers specialise in this role. no corp hangar, no big cargo, no triage, just many deadly fighters. mebbe the fighters adjusted as capital weapon. as compensation introduce an new capital ship class with similar requirements which specialises in the supporting role. cant be that hard. this way the mothership definatly will remain a supercapital and a swiss knife and normal carriers will have their roles fixed. with the jump freighters the logistical issue is solved as well.
Mashie Saldana Minmatar Hooligans Of War Insurgency	Posted - 2007.10.24 10:59:00 - [282] So a solo carrier can be damped to death? Oh noes, funnily enough so will any other ship in game as well. Damps are one of the very few counters there are to carriers today. I'm not surprised MC are at the people crying most about these changes but then again you are the inventors of the carrier blob... Jita fix: The distributed market hub
MrTriggerHappy Caldari Interstellar eXodus R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.10.24 10:59:00 - [283] Originally by: Mersault Edited by: Mersault on 24/10/2007 10:56:59 >Where does it say in the blog that that's what we're doing? Zulu, is your point about a solo carrier not being able to field all his fighters wihtout delegating, or are you responding to a suggestion of a different way of a carrier having defensive capability? "Something like flak cannons" He didn't say 'CCP are doing this' the guy made a suggestion is all. Thank you, that was my point. If your going to nerf its soloability yet maintain its "jack of all trade" status, you need to compensate or the carrier will be pointeless -------------------------------- My Comments in no way reflect my corp or alliance
DTee 0utbreak	Posted - 2007.10.24 10:59:00 - [284] 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!

CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2007.10.24 11:01:00 - [285] Originally by: Mersault Edited by: Mersault on 24/10/2007 10:56:59 >Where does it say in the blog that that's what we're doing? Zulu, is your point about a solo carrier not being able to field all his fighters wihtout delegating, or are you responding to a suggestion of a different way of a carrier having defensive capability? "Something like flak cannons" He didn't say 'CCP are doing this' the guy made a suggestion is all. I hope I didn't come off disrespectful, I meant to say that 'where does it say in the devblog that we'll be reducing the amount a carrier can field solo?' simply because it should not be in there. Sure, if you fit for all logistics under the new proposal, you'll have to sacrifice a few fighters, but if you fit for all damage, you probably will be able to field all your fighters yourself. Note that so far this is a rough idea, so we haven't ironed out specifics. But then again, this isn't coming out in the next expansion.

Popychacz	Posted - 2007.10.24 11:01:00 - [286] Edited by: Popychacz on 24/10/2007 11:03:42 Originally by: CCP Zulupark This idea is not based around anything regarding lag. It's purely a balancing/design idea. How are we not being honest? Hi there! So you spend entire year squeezing out performance fixes just to have it all ruined by one balance change? (forcing people to take alts into battlefield in order to be able to use full offensive power of their mains?). How the hell are we supposed to respect you? Design 101 - you need to encompass every part of design process - influence on lag, possibility of adding new features, graphics and systems and balancing of other elements your balance process. Limiting yourself to "reworking fighter amount on caps and supcaps" is just...dumb. Let me give you few examples: 1) The 0.0 transport role of Carrier. It's getting nerfed by by the introduction of jump capable freighters. Everyone who can afford them will use them over carriers, thus making carrier just a mid-range transport. If you do t2 freighters correctly, carriers will nerf themselves nicely, and everyone will applaud and love you. 2) The effectiveness of carriers against small gangs and small ships. Well, if you still had t20 as Cap Fleet FC, you would know such usefulness is already very low and with introduction of EAS, it's getting nerfed to hell. This field actually need an improvement. 3) Carriers as an endgame ship. Well, Battleship is an endgame vessel - it so much more powerful than cruiser and 95% of EVE flies it! It's really a silly argument. Drop it, it will make you look more intelligent. Now for solutions: 1. Give us new functionalities, not a "extra hi-slot", but actual an actual new functionality that will make carrier more useful as support ship than direct fire vessel. Deployable anti drone/fighter platform; PG-heavy ship tractor beams; remote hardeners and damage boosters; "fast-lock/ew-immunity" deploy module even deployable mini-POS shield for on-field maintenance duties. There is a whole lot of things that can be added, things that while providing nice boosts for other ships are useless for carriers themselves. Think outside the box. Make us gleam, make us be happy we have a carrier, make us so happy we will forget carrier actually has offensive capabilities. 2. Give us new vessels to fill the void for heavy fire fleet vessel. We have been flying battleships for what like 5 years now, it's really time for a change. Embrace the idea that BS are a support (albeit very heavy one), and give us some behemot that will make using carriers as core of the fleet just silly. Don't be afraid to balance by isk cost - you did it to HACs, it's finally the time to do it to BS. You're giving a gigantic boost to new players with EAS ships, give your older playerbase something big and shiny, something so awesome people would actually go back to playing just so they can fly one (or blow up one!). Oh and don't forget to fix bombers, POS warfare and boosters. Just this time, do it properly.
Gyle Caldari Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.	Posted - 2007.10.24 11:02:00 - [287] Originally by: CCP Oveur I'm actually reading every word posted here and I'd like to hear those ideas of yours. Dude if you get the chance and havent already please check out my proposal. Latest carrier concept
Xune Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.10.24 11:04:00 - [288] Not good enough for me. Carriers and Moms are fine as they are, anyone who thinks othewise has no glue. All the points your fielding for the " pro" nerf carrier side are fine on paper but if you would have spend more then 2 day¦s in one you would have already realysed thats pretty much crap.
MrTriggerHappy Caldari Interstellar eXodus R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.10.24 11:05:00 - [289] Originally by: CCP Zulupark Originally by: Mersault Edited by: Mersault on 24/10/2007 10:56:59 >Where does it say in the blog that that's what we're doing? Zulu, is your point about a solo carrier not being able to field all his fighters wihtout delegating, or are you responding to a suggestion of a different way of a carrier having defensive capability? "Something like flak cannons" He didn't say 'CCP are doing this' the guy made a suggestion is all. I hope I didn't come off disrespectful, I meant to say that 'where does it say in the devblog that we'll be reducing the amount a carrier can field solo?' simply because it should not be in there. Sure, if you fit for all logistics under the new proposal, you'll have to sacrifice a few fighters, but if you fit for all damage, you probably will be able to field all your fighters yourself. Note that so far this is a rough idea, so we haven't ironed out specifics. But then again, this isn't coming out in the next expansion. Quote: In an effort to shift the role of Carriers and Motherships from being assault ships to fleet logistic ships, as well as reducing their solo fighting ability, we wanted to limit the amount of fighters a carrier or mothership could field solo. By allowing them to control only up to 5 fighters themselves, but delegate up to 15/25(Carrier/Mothership w. drone control units) we're making them rely more on support if they are to unleash their full combat potential. Right there.. thats where lol -------------------------------- My Comments in no way reflect my corp or alliance
Ardvaark Ratnik	Posted - 2007.10.24 11:21:00 - [290] Quote: One of the big differences between this blog and the first one is that we're now focused on providing you with a series of choices to make when it comes time to take your ships out. This has nothing to do with comparing what a carrier can do against a single battleship or whatever. What we're talking about is entirely different. Basically you are giving us the choice to "take it in the Rear, or take it up front" as you are raping us anyhow and nothing is gonna change your minds so we might as well enjoy it. I am royally ticked off over the whole idea that carriers need any type of nerf, as pages and pages of constructive replies have shown they don't need it. You guys obviously don't fly a carrier and have absolutely no clue about them.

El'jonson	Posted - 2007.10.24 11:23:00 - [291] I like the modula carrier idea as long as by specialising our carriers in one area we gain abilities above what it is now... Combat we lose most corp and ship bay but gain damage, tank and resistence to ew. logistics can use 5 fighters the drone bay is reduced and maybe can jump furthur carry more etc Would like to see different types of fighters if I can't field normal drones maybe an intercepter style one 4 killing faster moving stuff and maybe a torpedo bomber 4 killing bigger stuff (could b fun with citahdel torps and making them come back to reload) and maybe a fighter type that reps shield,armor and hull ? also a ew fighter that when attacking does a bit damp and ecm or if assigned to guard a friend boosts it sensors (could b quite useful).
Okkie2	Posted - 2007.10.24 11:25:00 - [292] [ # Fighting off any kind of foe, small or big. Most have a set of fighters and a lot of normal drones in their drone bay. This means they can choose drones / fighters based on their enemy's size, choose their damage type and even be quite effective jammers using ewar drones. This is a problem for MOMs because they are immune to EW. A carrier will most probably be dampened to 5-6 km and not be able to use his drones properly. The drones won't all select the same target and also won't go after the right size target. In the end this means all drones can be easily killed without any real threat. # Great logistics ships - They've got plenty of capacitor to be very effective logistics ships using capital sized logistic modules. Triage mode can be very effective in small scale fleet combat when applied correctly. They are pretty good logistics ships in small warfare, but for carriers this is greatly reduced when they are dampened. Triage mode just doesn't work, not even in small warfare. You either use it if you are 100% sure you will win (np in having to be in that mode for 10 mins, and you might be able to keep some more of your friends alive) or you use it when you are 100% sure you are loosing and you can't get out (to maximize the time you live and maybe you can might take some of the hostiles with you) # Jump capable haulers - Although not an intended role, they're currently being used as jump capable haulers, which is probably the safest way to transport stuff from empire space to 0.0 and vice versa. I might hope that once we have the jumpdrive freighters, those will be a lot better at this, rendering the carrier useless for this role. # Excellent support ships - They can bring ships and modules behind enemy lines, are capable of fighter delegation and able to help damage-wise with minimal exposure to the enemy. That's exactly one of its intended roles. # Damage dealing (Small scale PVP, Capital PVP, Starbase Warfare) Damage dealing is fun for small/capital/starbase warfare, but 1 carrier only adds 1 BS worth of damage so not really a big deal for a 1-2 bil ship. # Logistics (Small scale PVP, Capital PVP, Starbase Warfare) # 0.0 Transporting # POS fueling I might hope the new jumpdrive freighter will be a lot better at these things rendering the carrier pretty useless in the transporting role. # Support (as in bringing along spare modules and ships behind enemy lines) That's exactly what a carrier is for # PvE (Ratting, missions, complexes etc.) Big tank, BS damage so this might be a problem as this is not the intended use of a carrier. Otoh a lot of carriers are killed while doing this so i'm not sure if this is a problem. * Increase teamplay and make the low skillpoint, non-capital pilots more valuable in fleet combat * A standard Carrier pilot (10 fighters) will need at least one "wingman" to field all his fighters. * Delegation control is much easier with the improved gang member list and the new "watch list" Most carrier/MOM pilot will not give control of a few hundred mils to a low skillpoint (thus not experienced) pilot. * We definitely don't want Carriers to be parked at starbases, they should be at the front lines keeping their gang mates alive. So don't have them delegate there fighters. Usually the main reason a carrier is on the frontline is because he wants to control his own drones. Furthermore they should not be completely rendered useless by a 2 sensordamper fitted frig. So something has to change for that. The proposed changes (fitting for the desired role) sounds good to me, but don't forget what you want the ship to do and make sure it's good at it. So make sure with the changes the carrier will be at it's best on the frontline and at it's worst on a SS/POS. And not to forget don't look to much at the hauling (goods) capabilities of it (or just nerf it). That's the new freighter role and a carrier should be a lot worse at.
Louis DelaBlanche Cosmic Odyssey YouWhat	Posted - 2007.10.24 11:27:00 - [293] Personally, I wish carriers & motherships had roles like their names implied. Carriers are mobile air strips & so their offensive (not defencive) capabilities with fighters & drones should be their main priority. Motherships, being in my mind mobile service stations/hotels should prioritise that. Currently, motherships & carriers perform multiple roles, but none of them to the extent that removing the others would still make them preferable for doing what remains. Theyre not, & tbh never have been the swiss army knife pwnmobiles this blog implies they are. Maybe on paper but not in Tranquility. I do wonder though, whether the day will come when motherships will ever be a realistic option for those of us who dont have alts to be imprisioned in them? As has been said many times already motherships as is are just expensive carriers. This change will further relegate them to the low sec smartbombboats they have been increasingly becoming of late. Treating both carriers & motherships as the same ship class is leading to ms becoming irrelavent in 0.0 PvP.
ArmyOfMe hirr Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.10.24 11:27:00 - [294] Originally by: Xune Not good enough for me. Carriers and Moms are fine as they are, anyone who thinks othewise has no glue. All the points your fielding for the " pro" nerf carrier side are fine on paper but if you would have spend more then 2 day¦s in one you would have already realysed thats pretty much crap. A single carrier or for that matter 2-3 carriers togheter isnt overpowerd at all, i 100% agree there. The problem first comes when you have a fleet of carriers with turtle tanks wich makes them impossible to kill, even i can see that there is a problem there
Blood Ghost Occam's Razor Combine	Posted - 2007.10.24 11:29:00 - [295] Well TBH I donÆt think the changes will do anything like the devs expect: If there an all out damage option vs. battleships, well thatÆs the option for fleet fights. Until you change the way logistics and fleet combat works there is just NO reason to fit for remote repair. The only reason most people fit remote repairs at the moment is for other capitals ships. You can increase lock speed, boost amount etc but in a large fleet fight, anything but a capital ship is dead before you can boost it. Just look at why triage isnÆt used at the moment!! Could you just abandon the idea and swap to fixing bombers already?
MOS DEF 0utbreak	Posted - 2007.10.24 11:29:00 - [296] Let me sum this up quick. New dev had a stupid idea. Community goes nuts. Scratch that idea and waste tons of manhours to make carriers and motherships the same as now besides that they have to refit some useless mods for the purpose they are used for. Result: Wasted manhours on the dev team that could be invested into something more useful. And you still constantly ignore the call for evidence. What makes the carriers unbalanced. 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. You keep arguing but you still haven't come up with why they deserve the nerf. In realitzy carriers are very vulnerable and easy to take dow but of course you cannot admit that anymore now. In your dev blogs you simply state it as a fact that carriers are so overpowered. Funny since the actual game reality is different.
ElvenLord 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.10.24 11:32:00 - [297] Edited by: ElvenLord on 24/10/2007 11:32:45 Originally by: MOS DEF Let me sum this up quick. New dev had a stupid idea. Community goes nuts. Scratch that idea and waste tons of manhours to make carriers and motherships the same as now besides that they have to refit some useless mods for the purpose they are used for. Result: Wasted manhours on the dev team that could be invested into something more useful. And you still constantly ignore the call for evidence. What makes the carriers unbalanced. 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. You keep arguing but you still haven't come up with why they deserve the nerf. In realitzy carriers are very vulnerable and easy to take dow but of course you cannot admit that anymore now. In your dev blogs you simply state it as a fact that carriers are so overpowered. Funny since the actual game reality is different. for ones they should maybe browse Killboards a little, it want hurt them much (if we don't take ego in to count :P )
000Hunter000 Gallente Magners Marauders	Posted - 2007.10.24 11:32:00 - [298] This devblog = lose, are u guys really that clueless? (i think u allready answered this, so nm) happy fanfest, i hope u have lots of security running around WTS: 1 chimera carrier, 15 fighters and about 100 or so assorted drones and and fitting, contact me ingame. CCP, let us pay the online shop with Direct Debit!!! Magners is now recruiting, evemail me or Dagazbo ingame.
Khes	Posted - 2007.10.24 11:36:00 - [299] Edited by: Khes on 24/10/2007 11:36:57 I think CCP has some very good points in this matter, and I would welcome a change that specializes the mothership and carriers roles.
DTee 0utbreak	Posted - 2007.10.24 11:39:00 - [300] 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.



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 36 :: 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.