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) |
RazorCRO
Caldari The Arrow Project Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 12:50:00 -
[331]
Originally by: Gyle Ok now since it seems the devs are watching this post then it would be a logical place for discussion.
The reason CCP seems to have an issue with carriers is because they call them a master of all traits in their latest blog. If they still believe that something needs to give and there needs to be changes on these vessels it then becomes a case of damage limitation.
CCP, as too many forum posts to mention have demonstrated, the general feeling of outrage at the original proposalswas a direct result of your intent to disable their offensive capabilities. If you canÆt look here for a change then you must consider other alternatives.
Here are my proposals at a sort of compromise.
1. Leave their offensive power as it is
As previously discussed carriers offensive power is perfectly balanced. This must not change. They are not solopwnmobiles as most people agree. (Apologies to the noobs but itÆs a fact. An arazu or a gang fitted with sensor damps can paralyze a carrier) If CCP can just leave sensor damps as they are this will not change. Motherships should remain immune to EW as this is the benefit of the price tag.
2. Rethink their support role all together
A carrier is an offensive tool. You do not see aircraft carriers pulling up alongside battle ships in the middle of a sea battle and affecting repairs. Now donÆt freak out. But what if CCP was to remove their ability to use capital armor/shield/energy transporters? You could shift that ability onto rorquals or any of a dozen new capital class logistical/industrial vessels that CCP could introduce that could do it more effectively (cÆmon we all know how CCP loves to introduce new ships). You could also increase the range on the non capital mods to allow BS to help with pos repairs rather than just the poor cap pilots. Oh and while we are at it for the love of god, the ships that would get the new bonus to capital reps should have double effectiveness against repping stationary stuff like towers/mods/stations etc. If these ships have no offensive capabilities you wonÆt get them aiding a pos while it is under siege.
3. Shift their logistical role completely.
Reduce the carriers ship maintenance bay to 0 M3 but allow them to keep the tab so other ships can still refit at them. Again Motherships retain current maintenance size. You can then introduce logistical carriers that have 0 drone bay and no offensive power but have an enormous maintenance bay such as 10million m3 and maybe a clone vat bay as well. Jumpfreighters are about to make carriers more and more obsolete in this role anyways and this is the avenue that CCP should be taking. Split combat and logistics. Do not penalize offensive ships and pilots who have decided to take that route. Simply add alternatives and promote teamwork and vessels that will do those other tasks more effectivly. Again you do not send aircraft to deliver supplies. You send an industrial vessel.
To sum up Introduce new capital ships for capital repping on stations and other caps. Push harder down the lines splitting hauling and carriers and introduce better tools and ships to deal with the gap that would create. And finally and most importantly stay well away from any changes you are even thinking about making to carriers drone/offensive capabilities.
All comments welcome
Great idea. Yes, carriers need to be "refined" and i see this as GREAT proposition how to do it. Hope someone from CCP will read this and think about it.
|
Gwennec
Filthy Scum
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 12:52:00 -
[332]
please remove capital sized remote repping modules and add instead fighter sized remote repping drones, it would help alot in the problem
|
Matthew
Caldari BloodStar Technologies
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 12:55:00 -
[333]
Originally by: Jaleera Kaisin We have to refit for specific roles already: - you and to haul a lot, fit cargo expanders and cap rechargers which reduces your tank, - you want to fight, fit sensor boosters, smart Bombs and a hard tank, - you want to offer more support, fit remote repairers/sensor boosters and cap rechargers - you want more damage, fit DCU's
Obviously you already fit for the role you're primarily using. Doing otherwise would just be silly.
However, that's not really the point. The point is, how good are you at the stuff you've not fitted for, even though you haven't fitted for it? Clearly, you're not going to be optimal at it, but you're likely to be better at the "secondary" roles than the same trade-off would achieve in other ship classes. Remember, this is what you could do, even if you don't actually try to use that capability. ------- There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines. |
Darknesss
D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 12:58:00 -
[334]
So your saying you are going to give us the choice to what happens to our carriers/motherships... its eve's choice already to say we dont want these changes.
Add option: [ ] Tick here for no change at all.
|
iimethodii
Caldari Fallen Angel's Blade.
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 13:04:00 -
[335]
Considering the amount of time I spent training up for carrier V on one of my characters, can I please have the skill downgraded to lv4, and those skill points re-distributed how I see fit, as I no longer have a need for that skill at all, and consider that a good 2 months of training time wasted, only to be slammed with a change of such epic failure.
****, I may just cancel all 5 of my accounts.
|
Averiana
CR4VE
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 13:07:00 -
[336]
Please can you clarify when this is happening, what exactly will be nerfed and if at any point you will be listening to the majority of players within the game.
Also, with reference to skills etc. Being as the majority trained for carriers / moms at their present time (always expecting a slight reasonable change) and yet the usage of them will be completely changed will there be a refund of skills etc trained in those sections.
Serious questions for a stupid nerf!
|
Khalm
Firing Squad Pure.
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 13:14:00 -
[337]
So basically they are saying that they know it better than players.
|
Damned Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 13:20:00 -
[338]
Edited by: Damned Force on 24/10/2007 13:24:33 Edited by: Damned Force on 24/10/2007 13:23:33
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
Originally by: DTee Edited by: DTee on 24/10/2007 10:06:50
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?
In relation to your second reply. I can say that I do not mind having to choose for a specific role but wasn't hte initial idea to nerf drones rather awkward and inflexible?
I am sure there are alternative sother hten removing the number of fighters a carrier can field.
wouldn't you agree?
It would only remove numbers of fighters if you fit that way. You could also possibly fit to have MORE fighters, but then you might have to give up some other abilities, like a corp hangar array or remote repping.
That's the beauty of this, YOU choose how you want to kit out, and could be more proficient at the role you choose then you are now.
I still dont see where is overpowered a "CAPITAL" ship if can do support and laughtable 1200-1600dps. Than a battleship with remote reps is too effective too because can do good damage(some of them almost equal with the carrier) and support other ships too. Ballance BS's because they can do more than shoot!!!!!
Yes, what the wise player wrote before me. The community can do what will u think u know better and u would do the changes. Tnx that we can feel that what we saying is "so much" worth.
At least we should get skillpoint and skillbook ISK refundation!!!!
|
Dufas
Amarr Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 13:25:00 -
[339]
Second verse same as the first....and i'd like to see one of these mega overpowered carriers cause i know mine sure isnt and i have yet to see one that can not be taken down...stop playing yahoo checkers and log into eve some time ----------------------------------------
|
Deeeva
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 13:28:00 -
[340]
I'm confused, people talk of quitting and we are still only in the process of throwing ideas around It's like people read the first carrier/mom blog and are stuck in the mindest that it will be a complete nerf.
p.s. As i see it you'l probably end up being able to do more damage to your desired target than at present, at the expense of something else. eg remote repairing/lower tracking on smaller targets.
|
|
Xaen
Caldari Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 13:31:00 -
[341]
Here's the short of it: If carriers can't field as many drones as possible right now, I'm not going to bother training for them.
You guys at CCP keep touting it as a front line logistics ship but most of the players have refuted this almost entirely. It takes so long for a carrier to lock a friendly that it's only good for repairing POSes after the battle.
And two damps turn it into a large collidable structure. Not to mention fighters are way too expensive. Almost as absurd as bombs. --
Support fixing the EVE UI
|
Khes
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 13:31:00 -
[342]
Originally by: ****c
Originally by: Khes 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.
So rather than have the current position where you can perform all the roles to a reasonable level, you would rather have to pick and choose what you can do?
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense :(
Yes exactly, that makes a world full of sense!
|
JuniPerOX
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 13:33:00 -
[343]
as this system works since 1+ year now i think the drastic change of this working system its not an option. the most players have skilled and trained and come along with the capabilties of the carriers and mums around. the word carrier implies an big ship carring an tremendous amount of fighting bastards as primary weapon and as defense. limit it after this period is nothing more than try to make it unuseable for this lowsec mumdrivers on the gates - but this should be solved on an other way! make it vunarable against scrambler in lowsec or disallow mums in lowsec at all. limit the number of capitals per fleet and bring in costs for the useage of capitals per hour if used in space...etc. etc.
all is reached with this is that the carries is degraded to supportplattforms which will be blinded as they arrive on the field = useless, gatecamps with carriers and mums will see only more altchars and ceptors with assigned fighters, which all engage the same target = no effect as wished! the motivation to skill for capitals is degraded to transportation purposes!
carriers are utility ships with very powerful weapons and support systems! motherships are much more powerful (but still to small modelled in eve!).
since the last 4 years we come along with many changes on "broken" things, some useful - some not! this one is one of the deillusioning change planned by the creator of the game - reflecting that a player can not rely on, even older - systematics of the gameplay. this for an skill intensive spezialisation tree for this capitalships is really demotivating.
leave the power of carriers with drones as they are now! flexible, controlable, offensive, defensive, + give us tech II fighters! thanks for your attention.
|
Elmicker
Black Sea Industries Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 13:34:00 -
[344]
Originally by: CCP Oveur 1) You simply refit for your role, nothing permanent here.
You already have to refit to perform seperate roles. You're sitting there blathering about specialising the ships through refitting, and you all sound like you've not got a clue.
So again an open question to every developer involved in this change:
Have you ever piloted carriers in real fleet engagements on TQ?
Where're the enslaver and T20 in all of this one? You took enough flak for them having done what they did, you may as well use their experience on the subject.
|
Amaldor Themodius
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 13:43:00 -
[345]
Honestly do these guys have a clue do they even play the game?? Carriers are not as it stands the "end game" ship they are being touted to be.. Im not going to rediscuss what has been said by others above. Lately everytime CCP post a thread on changes to in game ships or modules they take something functional and make it dysfunctional... Examples include the recent nerf of NOS, the up comming r@pe of sensor damps, drone bandwidth, the Eos, the Myrmidon (and all the gallentae ew ships with bonuses to the to be nerfed damp modules) and the list goes on extensively..
CCP are by the day imho demonstrating they are arrogant to their player base, inept at communicating effectively, and are out of touch with their consumers. Everything from stability of the game and un expected crashes to the responses they provide to pettitions, to the poorly considered nerf bat dictatorship that reduce our choices on how to fight in game.
IMHO they need to axe (cease the employment of) some of these creative geniuses who are fixing problems that in all honesty dont exist.. Use the funds saved on this to invest in better system architecture, better assets and "quality" upgrades that enrich our game play experience as opposed to what is happening now. This shouldn't be a news flash but LAG is the single greatest issue in this game, would be nice to be able to play the game with the current content and enjoy the effects and sound without having to worry about losing connection or being lagged to hell. But apparently thats not to be cause we have this "new" trinity platform comming in to make the graphics even better which is another example of ccp not getting it... the graphics are fine fix LAG. Like many in game i am running my client with the sound off which makes the experience more like looking at a painting than playing in a rich game environ..
So to come back on topic the cap ship nerf is horrendous.. players train for almost 6 months to fly these ships proficiently, they invest over a billion isk getting the skills, a further billion to buy a ship, and then a further billion to outfit them (on the cheap. I dont see the problem if they are a little versatile and can perform a jack of all trades role.. And it makes no sense to me at all to say a carrier isnt intended to kill smaller ships, why the hell not??
This said i note the DEV responding KEIRON has the tittle of Director of Community Relations.. im guessing he works in a team of 1 based on the customer experience i have enjoyed in this game.. There is no competition to eve at present so as a consumer i have no choice but to subscribe until an alternative becomes available.. however on the day the competition arrives I as a consumer will vote with my wallet and reward whichever service provider matches my needs best.
So yeah this does mean at a future time it could very well be I will give someone my stuff.. I honestly believe CCP are having a giggle when they so voiciferously proclaim they releaes 2 free patces every year.. Would anyone pay to get a kick in the nuts?? Apparently CCP believe each of these nut *****ing patches that destroy our game play more than enrich it are a feature that provide extra value.. They dont somethings are good but then its weighed off against the aweful stability issues and extended downtime required for weeks after every patch to fix stuff that doesnt work, the many nerfs contained there in, the LAG that keep on persisting in game.. we had a need for speed patch released earlier in the year.. lets hope that its like part 1 of 10 or something cause even in small gang fights often lag decides the winner not skill, judgement, intelligence or other factors that should make the difference.
Well that was a rant.. and probably time wasted in truth as CCP is hopeless at providing commentary on... well pretty much anything..
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 13:44:00 -
[346]
Originally by: Khalm So basically they are saying that they know it better than players.
Yup! People like "I'm-training-for-a-carrier" Eris obviously knows far better than anyone how carriers work! After all, you only need access to the code to know how things work, experience using it is not a factor....
Doesn't matter that a (huge) majority of carrier pilots tell you otherwise... CCP MUST know best....
Carriers Offensive: In SOME situations better than a BS (and easily countered) Logistics: *lol* Only usable for other capitals Hauling: Used only because they suck LESS than all other options Weaknesses: Ignored completely by all CCP posters
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.
|
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 13:46:00 -
[347]
Originally by: Mindlles 20 "smaller ships" can easly kill does 5 carriers if they know what they do. Pick them off one by one, and kick their arse while keeping them loocked down.
Yep, CCP seem to be ingoring the fact that these 5 carriers at around 2 billion each ships can easily be damped by just a couple of frigates and their fighters easily killed leaving them to just be hunks of floating metal.
I have said it before, as other players have. CCP is obviously not playing this game anymore and therefore they are working off of incorrect assumptions.
Carriers are NOT the problem, pos warefare and blobs are the problem. Eliminate my need to constantly be in a carrier and I would gladly move down to a BS so I can move around freely again.
|
thormadragon
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 13:53:00 -
[348]
Yes now this blog explains the problem CCP has with carriers in a much better way. I totally agree with it. Carriers will be changed, but as long as we, the players, have the choice in which way we wanna use it i can live with the change quite fine. All my training not wasted, i have the freedom to choose between logistics or DPS carrier... at least that¦s how i understand it. See? Give us freedom to choose and we¦re happy. A carrier should not be able to fill multiple roles at the same time? Fine with me... Thank you
|
Elmicker
Black Sea Industries Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 13:55:00 -
[349]
I dont think it matters how much they sugarcoat this, people will always be ****ed. You introduce a ship class that takes a year of training and multiple billions of isk to utilise even basically, with a clear cut purpose and role. Thousands of people train for these ships and use them without causing a major unbalancing for what is now literally years, and then you suddenly decide to change their role. People don't want to be stuck flying a glorified hauler, and if that's what their last year of training means, they're going to be pretty ******* angry.
|
Kwint Sommer
Incoherent Inc Otaku Invasion
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 13:59:00 -
[350]
Originally by: RossP Zoyka
3.) Carriers lose a large chunk of their hitpoints
You don't fight in too many large battles, do you? If you substantially reduce their hitpoints then throw in some good old fashioned module activation lag they'll be popped from concentrated fire before they can so much as activate a booster, let alone get repped by their allies. Having a 1B ISK ship with another Billion in mods and fighters get popped before it can do a single rep cycle is not okay....
As for the reading the rest of your proposal, well I stopped after you suggested CCP rebreak something they corrected more than a year ago.
Sig removed. Please keep sigs to 400x120 pixels and 24000 bytes in size or less. -Kaemonn |
|
Lazuran
Gallente Time And ISK Sink Corporation
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 14:00:00 -
[351]
Originally by: CCP kieron We do not see a problem with a ship being a jack of all trades and as long as it is a master of none, but when the ship is a master of all trades, then it departs from the original design concept.
The carrier is and never was a jack of all trades and definetely not a master of all trades.
I really don't know anymore whether the people at CCP are really that far out of touch with the game or whether these are the new CCP "mushroom tactics" to deal with lag and other issues that you cannot find a solution for (like the ageing population, getting richer and stronger compared to beginners).
I have a simple question for you: do you know how often Carrier pilots fly other ships? Is this not proof enough that Carriers aren't "masters of all trades" - in case you actually need proof, I still prefer to not attribute things to malice that can be sufficiently explained by incompetence.
I have decent Carrier skills on my main and have 1359 kills with it in about 4 months, 1 of it is in my Nidhoggur. I guess I'm a bad PVPer since I could just solowtpfwn everything, right?
"...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) |
Frida Floppy
Asgard Schiffswerften Ev0ke
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 14:00:00 -
[352]
" Ps. Don't mind the changes on Sisi, they'll be reverted on next update and were accidental. "
the only thing this shows is how you lie to the whole comunity ,
Say hey guys i have an idea , and have it already finished and implemented . that it goes on sisi was a accident .......... but shows us how you act.
the only thing why you not allone at your server is that actually none other mmorpg is a alternative to eve. Some of them in developing and when you dont change your mind in some things you be realy allone at TQ after the release.
For me the biggest bull***** is how you ignore longtherm Customers ( the peps who pay you ) and lie them straight in the face , ignore , and maybe thing stupid peps we make our thing what ever you think .
btw: Pls nerf hac's they can kill easy a t1 cruiser , nerf Cloak because i cant see the ships , nerf Ceptors ..... they to fasst if you need more contact me .
|
Baun
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 14:02:00 -
[353]
Originally by: CCP Oveur
It's their versatility, at the same time, without drawbacks.
Please explain how this is actually overpowered and in need of nerfing, however.
It may be that you think you can improve the game somehow generally but that is very different than claiming it needs to be rebalanced.
You would find that if you actually fixed lag, that your game is already alot more balanced than you think. Why don't you start there and see how the game actually plays when ships aren't pinned to their locations in large battles and HP isn't everything in fleet combat.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Okotomi Anki
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 14:02:00 -
[354]
Originally by: CCP Nozh We'd like to point out all design matters are ratified in groups, so in the future, please include at least Hammerhead, Oveur and our janitor in any ill thoughts you may have as a result of EVE's direction.
Looks like the root of the problem.
Next time, please, keep janitors out of design process.
|
arxidi
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 14:07:00 -
[355]
The original CCP idea... OK, we have thousands of carriers with their fighters and drones producing lag and stability problems and there will be more of them. We can't delete them from the game...so we must find a way that players wan't use them any more. We will post some ridiculous ideas as a excuse and we will do it. Let them scream at forums... Screw the morons who invested billions and months to fly or build them. Uppsss...we have some accounts canceled. Tell them we reconsider it. We will do it anyway
|
cardGames
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 14:08:00 -
[356]
I get it ... you want to stop carriers/moms from camping gates in low sec it has to be it. If you want to nerf it so mom's cant launch drones at stargates go right ahead it wont effect me. i have better things to do then sit on gates all day playing god lol.
But normal carriers are fine, They can be damped really easy to make them useless, i have been jammed once or twice in my carrier as well also unlike moms we can be scrambled so if we dont have a decent support fleet Were dead. i have never heard of a single carrier taking on 20 battleships and winning... or Command ships for that matter.
This new change all it is gonna do is make carriers really big haulers again... Because carrier pilots in battle have enough stuff to micro manage and dont need anymore... we have to watch our drones so they dont die, keep with primary target, watch for who to repair, and make sure we arnt dieing, all at the same time. Now you wanna make it so we need to delegate fighters to make our selfs remotly usefull...
Do you know what a pain its gonna be reassigning drones from person to person(even with your new interface) as they warp out or die? Im really starting to wonder if you people play the game your working on.
so if you nerf your gonna increase the hangers size... well that means if this nerf takes place most of the carriers will be turned into even bigger haulers or you will just see them repping pos shields or something.
If this nerf is because some newbs in t1 frigs took on a carrier and lost, and cried because carriers are over powered we have a problem... Carriers shouldnt be able to be killed by everyone, just by most and thats where it is right now. Carriers die really quick to focus fire of a decent fleet
|
Elite MIner
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 14:09:00 -
[357]
Edited by: Elite MIner on 24/10/2007 14:10:56
Quote:
From dev blog: .... There are more than 10,000 Carriers in play, a vessel which can be everything you want it to be (which is part of the problem) without having to fit for the occasion. ...
I'm glad u post these numbers. I'd like to see how many carriers skils buyed already until now and how many other accounts already have complementar skill ready for carrier.
Quote:
A few points you need to take into consideration when looking at this change: * Encourages people to bring support vessels with their capital fleet * 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" * We definitely don't want Carriers to be parked at starbases, they should be at the front lines keeping their gang mates alive. * Carriers are also receiving a ship maintenance bay / corporation hanger boost, allowing them to bring more ships and modules to the front lines.
As BoB member i'm deeply involved with my chars in all kind of operations. Every op need support ships and in every op number's of standard fleet was 3time greater than capital ships. Carriers without support fleet r sitting duck targets. Carriers can be jammed/dampened so even in packs r not the swiss army knive u talking about. A regular fleet with dampers/jammer/scrambling capabilities can killing those ships easily, of course they need to have at least 2x numbers than enemy carrier's and a good strategy.
Conclusion: Better remove all cap ships from the game. First titans was nerfed because those ships was almost invulnerable but if u look now 4-6months after the nerf u realize titans r no almost useless and except jumping bridges we DONT see in game. This nerf hidding the ballance between skillpoint players vs the new joined player. Its like in real life a few hundred's of people equipped with stone's and swords fights with a couple of people with tank's and machine gun's.
Quote:
We also realize that we put you into the situation of having trained and paid for them with the goal in mind of being able to use them to their full potential. We recognize this is what hurts you the most and we sincerely apologize for that. With this in mind we have changed two things:
Yes gladdly u realize this and maybe u should reconsider to reimburse those people because we talking here about a huge training time (for all carier needed skills in lvl 4 with only 2 remote repairs like for ex. capital remote repair+capital shield emission system, with a char with 20points on each atribute is about 320 days to train).
From 10k people who already have a carier and perhaps much more with skills but not the ship u should reconsider many of them will not want to fly a carrier anymore after the nerf and maybe those skillpoints&time invested for carrier they want to have them now in other skills.
Quote: We donæt want Carriers and Motherships to be as effective against smaller ships (Frigates, Destroyers, Cruisers and Battlecruisers) while being just as effective against the larger ships (Battleships and up) at the same time.
In other words most of CCP income money come from people who fly those kind of ships (frigs to battlecruisers) and we dont ******* care if u pay this game from 4 years and u invested in cap. ship. We dont want to upset our new 6months customers in eve so we can scr3w on the older players who r too adictted and maybe they will not cancell subscriptions (at least not all off them).
This nerf its only because of this anyway how much u want to hide this. Instead to unblob eve u encourage swarm of t1 frigs/cruisers and stuff like that. Quantity never should been equal with QUALITY.
|
Melanu
Gallente InQuest Ascension R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 14:10:00 -
[358]
Edited by: Melanu on 24/10/2007 14:11:14
Originally by: Cadiz Remove the remote logistics bonuses of the current carriers. Add tier 2/second batch of tier 1 carriers that have (more substantial) bonuses to using capital remote logistics at expense of drone control bonuses.
Instead of watering down carriers terribly, why not just break them apart into more specialized subsects? Sure, extra art resources, etc. etc. etc., but the devs should know better than anybody that new ships make everybody excited.
Very nice idea. It allows more specialization.
Edit: knew i shoulda trained for the astarte
|
John McCreedy
Caldari Eve Defence Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 14:13:00 -
[359]
Originally by: Gyle 2. Rethink their support role all together
A carrier is an offensive tool. You do not see aircraft carriers pulling up alongside battle ships in the middle of a sea battle and affecting repairs. Now donÆt freak out. But what if CCP was to remove their ability to use capital armor/shield/energy transporters? You could shift that ability onto rorquals or any of a dozen new capital class logistical/industrial vessels that CCP could introduce that could do it more effectively (cÆmon we all know how CCP loves to introduce new ships). You could also increase the range on the non capital mods to allow BS to help with pos repairs rather than just the poor cap pilots. Oh and while we are at it for the love of god, the ships that would get the new bonus to capital reps should have double effectiveness against repping stationary stuff like towers/mods/stations etc. If these ships have no offensive capabilities you wonÆt get them aiding a pos while it is under siege.
Good idea at first thought but look deeper into it. The idea of training for a vessel who's primary use would be repairing POS would make most folks cringe. Plus seiging a system is bad enough now without doubling the effectiveness at repping towers with a new logistics ship. Short of being camped 23/7 or industrial sabotage (i.e. a Director level spy/traitor offlining towers) systems would be unconquerable.
Originally by: Gyle 3. Shift their logistical role completely.
Reduce the carriers ship maintenance bay to 0 M3 but allow them to keep the tab so other ships can still refit at them. Again Motherships retain current maintenance size. You can then introduce logistical carriers that have 0 drone bay and no offensive power but have an enormous maintenance bay such as 10million m3 and maybe a clone vat bay as well. Jumpfreighters are about to make carriers more and more obsolete in this role anyways and this is the avenue that CCP should be taking. Split combat and logistics. Do not penalize offensive ships and pilots who have decided to take that route. Simply add alternatives and promote teamwork and vessels that will do those other tasks more effectivly. Again you do not send aircraft to deliver supplies. You send an industrial vessel.
Again, a terrible idea because what you're effectively saying is CCP should penalise the playerbase because of their lack of foresight. Eve's been crying out for Jump Capable Freighters since the day Frieghters where launched and they're only due to be implemented in the November expansion. CCP always use the stick (i.e. the nerf bat) to beat us with rather than the carrott of a viable alternative to the problem. The role of a Carrier as a jump capable freighter will be replaced when true jump capable freighters are introduced, assuming CCP make it worth our while to do so. If anything, a Carrier and a Mothership should have their maintenance arrays increased in size to acomodate more ships so that they can actually supply replacement ships to people on the battlefield.
Great sentiment and a constructive post and I don't in anyway wish this to be seen as a flame, but unfortunately the plain fact of the matter is that in this case, CCP have got it wrong and they are in real danger of alienating a large proportion of their customer base because they simply will not listen.
Make a Difference
|
Druadan
Gallente Aristotle Enterprises Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 14:14:00 -
[360]
I'm encouraged by this new take on the carrier nerf. Specialisation is exactly the way to fix the master-of-all-trades status of carriers. It's a status I don't actually believe the carrier has. Its capital tank buckles under focused capital firepower, just like a battleship's buckles when it is primaried by battleships. It doesn't do well against small ships, as they just dampen it so it can't lock them quickly. It cannot even carry a battleship, though I heard in-game that battleships are being reduced to 400-500k m3, and the carrier's SMB is being boosted to 1M m3, which is a sorely needed change, in my opinion.
But I'm more interested in the constructive discussion of this specialisation idea, at the moment. I love the idea of being able to beef up one aspect of my carrier, while letting another slide. So I can go in well-balanced with a bit of DPS and replacement ships for a small gang, or I can lose some SMB+RemoteRepping and go in with some devastating firepower, or I can lose firepower/RemoteRepping and carry in replacement ships, or I can lose firepower/SMB and go in with some awesome remote repping. It's a change I really think will be useful.
Now, will it be done via a module? If so, will we get an additional highslot to fit this module in? Or will it be done via a new carrier/MS-only 'Operations Core' slot, to which we fit Logistics (hauling) Core, or Lolgistics (repping) Core, or T÷talhelldeath (damage) Core, or TheCannonsTheyDoNothing (tanking) Core etc.
|
|
|
|
|
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 |