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) |
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar MASS HOMICIDE Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 14:15:00 -
[361]
F!@##! Stop Crying your cry babies!!!
You look PATHETIC!!
CCp already said they are thinking on a new solution and the only thing you can do is cry cry cry and call names. Pathetic, disgusting and !$!$!#&!@#!!
Stop thinking with your belly buttons. PRice was never an excuse when of the nanonerf, and you can only repeat this same bull**** now. To hell with the price. I fly Battleships equiped to a price tag that make most carrier look cheap.
Price was nod a valid excuse for the nanophoon and should not be to the carrier! 10k carrier in game!! That is beyond words!! That means 1 carrier for every 30 characters!!! Considering the alts that means probably around 1 carrier for every 15 players!!! CCP is damm right on being worried.
There is no reason to fly anything else but a carrier if you have a carrier, this is ENOUGH to make them need a nerf.
If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough |
RossP Zoyka
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 14:16:00 -
[362]
Originally by: Kwint Sommer
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.
A large chunk is not ALL hitpoints....
By the way, thank you for at least admitting you are an ignorant snob who can't read, extra firepower CAN be delivered remotely to a fleet by the carrier but only at the head of a vulnerable small ship. It would probably have to be done in spurts as the small ship is destroyed.
So you would have to constantly keep sending multiple AF to the front line with a swarm of fighters (more fighters then they currently field now).
By the time the battle became managable, lots of dead bodies, etc. etc. Then the carrier comes in and completely turns the tide by repping and lots of additional damage.
Carriers would be better at taking out 10 BS by themselves then they would be at blobbing. Vulnerable to structured focus fire but not to bullcrap.
They would also require alternative fleet tactics but would still be valuable as damage dealers (but not as reppers until lag became managable.)
|
Inflexible
Rytiri Lva
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 14:24:00 -
[363]
Edited by: Inflexible on 24/10/2007 14:25:18
Originally by: Kagura Nikon CCp already said they are thinking on a new solution and the only thing you can do is cry cry cry and call names. Pathetic, disgusting and !$!$!#&!@#!!
Point is, they are trying to find new solution to non-existing problem, because their old solution to non-existing problem was not accepted quite well.
|
Inflexible
Rytiri Lva
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 14:25:00 -
[364]
Edited by: Inflexible on 24/10/2007 14:24:56 Double post
|
Saint Luka
The Illuminati. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 14:26:00 -
[365]
Still, bad idea's.
No-one in the community understands where your perceptions come from. Yes, it can do more then one thing. Haul and fight? Hey ****, so can a battle badger.
-
|
Dave PSI
Haendlergilde S.E.R.A
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 14:26:00 -
[366]
The Carriers & Moms need no change.
stop posting stupid advices and focus your work on useful . things
T R U S T shop: http://www.evetrust.com // Haendlergilde [HAE]
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 14:28:00 -
[367]
Originally by: Kagura Nikon I fly Battleships equiped to a price tag that make most carrier look cheap.
I have spotted a new primary for whoever fights IAC
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.
|
Ieu Duin
Amarr Star Sabre Industries
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 14:31:00 -
[368]
It is 100% artificial to require Carriers to bring a "wingman" along just to be able to launch their full compliment of fighters. They are Carriers for Amarr's sake. They are their fighters. Take the fighters away and all you are left with is a 200,000 Ton Quick-E Mart.
Don't take the fighters away; make them only be able to support the fighters. Take away all other offensive capabilities. Strip them of their armor and restrict their support to the fighters.
If players want to make Strike Carriers then they can select those types of fighters. If they want ECM Carriers then they can go that way.
If you want to mandate that Carrier pilots use their fighters in support roles for other ships then give them bonuses to perform those functions.
Do things that require the Carrier to need a supporting cast in other areas. The fighters are not the problem the Carrier is the problem. Fix the problem don't limit the primary tool of the vessel.
You are penalizing Carrier pilots for your lack of foresight.
|
Arokan Manturi
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 14:35:00 -
[369]
I love reading all these cry posts.
|
Xilimyth Derlin
OldBastardsPub SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 14:35:00 -
[370]
Originally by: Ieu Duin It is 100% artificial to require Carriers to bring a "wingman" along just to be able to launch their full compliment of fighters. They are Carriers for Amarr's sake. They are their fighters. Take the fighters away and all you are left with is a 200,000 Ton Quick-E Mart.
Don't take the fighters away; make them only be able to support the fighters. Take away all other offensive capabilities. Strip them of their armor and restrict their support to the fighters.
If players want to make Strike Carriers then they can select those types of fighters. If they want ECM Carriers then they can go that way.
If you want to mandate that Carrier pilots use their fighters in support roles for other ships then give them bonuses to perform those functions.
Do things that require the Carrier to need a supporting cast in other areas. The fighters are not the problem the Carrier is the problem. Fix the problem don't limit the primary tool of the vessel.
You are penalizing Carrier pilots for your lack of foresight.
I'm sincerely hoping they're getting rid of the forced delegation idea. The specialization concept is one thing (ie... drone control units being required for additional fighters / damage) but forcing the carrier to need a wingman FOR that specialization was silly. -------------------------------------------
Carrier & Mothership changes - Voice your opinion here! |
|
Baun
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 14:44:00 -
[371]
We need a firm statement that forced delegation and decrease in the number of fighters controllable by carriers/motherships without a corresponding damage increase is out the window.
I.E. Oveur or whoever. Say yes or no to this.
This way we can know whether or not to challenge our CC charges.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
J Valkor
Blackguard Brigade
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 14:45:00 -
[372]
Edited by: J Valkor on 24/10/2007 14:45:07 If the only ships in EVE become carriers and cyno ships I will stop playing. CCP is trying to avoid this outcome. A lot of you seem to want this out come. Dampeners are being nerfed. This is well known. A lot of you ignore if it for the sake of sucking your own ****s.
|
Arondor
Digital Fury Corporation
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 14:46:00 -
[373]
While this thread has already probably stated everything. I just can't read this and not reply with some specific quotes. The entire basis with which CCP seems to be approaching this is flawed.
Quote #1:If you can do all that (and probably a lot more) extremely efficiently with a single ship, why would EVE need any others? The problem is not that Carriers and Motherships are overpowered in a single specific role, but that they're extremely proficient in very many roles. In fact, no other ship classes are as versatile and powerful without requiring you to refit for it.
I don't think anyone in that thread said anything about not refitting their ships!! Yes we can do alot in carriers but I absolutely fit differently for each role. My fit for hauling crap is VERY VERY different than combat fits, and if I'm doing logistics like repping pos'es it changes again. Camping in low sec (never done it) but my fit would be different again than going into a fleet fight. Now if I'm in a large GROUP..let me restate that word GROUP, my fit might be pretty standard, but is that any different than a battleship (and just wait to watch the blobs of cynojumping battleships) group that has a standard fit?
Quote #2: +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.
Have you all ever fought against frigates in a carrier? You realize it takes a long time to lock them right and they can warp in and out and your drones just sit there doing nothing? or randomly aggressing multiple frigates? Try it damped? Can we deploy different sized weapons...sure, do people just warp to use set speed to 0 and wait for us to lock them and shoot them? no! When we roam in small gangs we engage every carrier we see in small groups or alone...period, cause we KNOW they won't hurt us and we MIGHT, depending on the cost of their setup be able to break their tank.
Anyways I'm sure these changes will go through despite their lack of seeming understanding of the mechanics involved, despite what the community is trying to point out is a flawed understanding of the issue
|
|
CCP Abathur
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 14:48:00 -
[374]
Edited by: CCP Abathur on 24/10/2007 14:51:23
Originally by: Druadan 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.
This is actually a pretty clear picture of what we're looking to do: give choices and provide options.
Quote: Now, will it be done via a module? If so, will we get an additional highslot to fit this module in?
We're looking at several different options. Modules that affect the ship itself or affect the fighters it launches are one of them. Slot layouts will likely stay the same but we'll examine that as well.
Quote: 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.
Interesting. Another idea is to look at new 'state' modules similar to the siege and triage modes that provide some sort of special bonuses or abilities with offsetting penalties.
What we are looking to do now is not so much a 'nerf' as it is an evolution of the carrier concept.
"Tux did it!" |
|
haniblecter
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 14:51:00 -
[375]
Fighting in the North this past year against MC/BoB sucked. Im not a capital pilot and I have no desire to be one. Watching as all the action was had by cap ships blows.
Nerf them, or combat will be faar out of the capability of average/new playes. btw, I got 30mill sp too.
|
Bobafeit
The SMITE Brotherhood
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 14:53:00 -
[376]
Quote: Fighting off any kind of foe, small or big.
this is just not true ive seen a small gang of skilled PVP,ers kill a carrier in matter of minutes (1 dictor ,3 hacs, 2 command ships , 2 cptors ) i suggest u devs try to be a "solopwnmobile" in a carrier on TQ without support and let us know how long u lasted
Quote: What activities do players engage in with their carriers? This thread was a very interesting read about how people use their carriers. Damage dealing (Small scale PVP, Capital PVP, Starbase Warfare) Logistics (Small scale PVP, Capital PVP, Starbase Warfare) Support (as in bringing along spare modules and ships behind enemy lines) PvE (Ratting, missions, complexes etc.) 0.0 Transporting POS fueling
1 question who should been on there is : How often do u use ure carrier in PVP without support? for me the answer is 0 and i bet alot of players would say the same
Quote: No ship in EVE should be the ôend gameö vessel, but that's what we feel we've got now. 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. We donÆt want to see either of these ships ripping apart everything that gets in their way, no matter the size. Carrier and Motherships were designed to be a combined effort among corporation members where they rely on the group, and be pretty much defenseless against small ship classes without support.
its not an endgame vessel its the next step up im sry to say but u devs really failed in doing ure job here and totally underestimated ure players will and dedication to achive their goal to be in a capship, so u got dedicated players infact over 10000 of them isnt that any online games goal? u devs should be happy the customers like ure product, but instead u feel they should be punished for their dedication?? i mean how would u feel if ure boss told u to if u take this 1 year class ull get a senior dev job and after a year ure boss tells u sry that class only qualify for phone support now?
My suggestion to u devs are take a step back (take a vaccation,some days off ect) cuz u seem to be in on a 1way track that nerfing is the only solution ( nos nerf,torp nerf,eos ect) to balance the game if u feel a carrier is so overpowered my suggestion is give the dredd a new module that can be swapped with the siege module that increase its tracking and dmg towards other cap ships that would give the dredd more use's then just sitting in a station collecting dust wile it w8 for next pos siege
when majority of ure playerbase think there is nothing wrong with the carrier and are happy with it the balance as it is, there is no problem so why try to fix it?
---CEO-The SMITE Brotherhood---
|
Xilimyth Derlin
OldBastardsPub SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 14:53:00 -
[377]
Originally by: haniblecter Fighting in the North this past year against MC/BoB sucked. Im not a capital pilot and I have no desire to be one. Watching as all the action was had by cap ships blows.
Nerf them, or combat will be faar out of the capability of average/new playes. btw, I got 30mill sp too.
Careful... I know some pilots that'll hunt ya down for a statement like that :P (Not that I'm one) -------------------------------------------
Carrier Adjustment Discussion - Take 2 |
GC13
Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 14:54:00 -
[378]
It warms my heart to see the devs coming in and speaking more candidly about this (side note: Didn't Oveur mention reasons to disperse forces? We're doing more with that? Heart is getting warmer, let's get a blog about further developments there!). All capitals (carriers especially) really do need some built-in dampener resistance... They have the high sensor strengths so they already have a built-in resistance to ECM, now we just need to add damps to that list.
If we're going for more of a "specialize your carrier" deal like has been said in the blog and several of the dev posts... Well, I'm sure this has come up before, but you'd need to tread very lightly there. Sensor boosters are already important to have one of, and carriers are always hungry for cap recharge. Lows are also the tanking area of choice.
I guess you could add +1 to all slots, and introduce stuff like increased ship maintenance bay (keep the base where it is though...) and corporate hangar array for low, logistics optimizer (reduced cap cost for logistics mods) and a whole array of fighter buffs for the mids. And of course, I'm all for making the dampers really scream by adding high slot mods that allow you to order fighters to engage without a lock (after all, my communicator still works, right?), and allow allies to "transmit" a lock on themselves to you by designating you previously and then hitting "need armor" or "need shields."
--
Science and Industry guide plus A Newbie's Guide to Caldari Ships |
Inflexible
Rytiri Lva
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 14:54:00 -
[379]
So generally, you are going to nerf anything (no matter what) on carriers, simply to give more "fun" to newer players killing these ships? It is not first game where devs came with idea of increasing fun to younger players at expense of older ones... It is pretty much shortsighted, because everyone will lose their motivation.
|
Xilimyth Derlin
OldBastardsPub SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 14:57:00 -
[380]
Edited by: Xilimyth Derlin on 24/10/2007 14:57:57
Originally by: Inflexible So generally, you are going to nerf anything (no matter what) on carriers, simply to give more "fun" to newer players killing these ships? It is not first game where devs came with idea of increasing fun to younger players at expense of older ones... It is pretty much shortsighted, because everyone will lose their motivation.
I'm sure not ALL players (edit: 'whom have played) since launch moved into capitals. Even if fully combat specced in non-capitals, surely they deserve fun (edit: in fleet battles) too. -------------------------------------------
Carrier Adjustment Discussion - Take 2 |
|
Raketefrau
Caldari Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 14:59:00 -
[381]
Edited by: Raketefrau on 24/10/2007 15:03:39
Originally by: Bobafeit
My suggestion to u devs are take a step back (take a vaccation,some days off ect) cuz u seem to be in on a 1way track that nerfing is the only solution ( nos nerf,torp nerf,eos ect) to balance the game if u feel a carrier is so overpowered my suggestion is give the dredd a new module that can be swapped with the siege module that increase its tracking and dmg towards other cap ships that would give the dredd more use's then just sitting in a station collecting dust wile it w8 for next pos siege
QFT, not for grammar or spelling.
Dreads right now are pointless ships unless you're in a POS war, at which point you're in a lag war, and not very willing to drag a 2B (and did I mention pointless?) ship into battle.
Instead of making an outrageously expensive (both in Isk and SP) ship more useful, your priority is to nerf the Carrier, which is the only thing Cap pilots really have going for them?
Maybe you *should* take some time and think about your priorities.
Fix what's broken before breaking what works.
|
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar MASS HOMICIDE Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 14:59:00 -
[382]
Another way of nerfing carriers without nerfing is... increase dreadnaught dps. Enough that 1 dread can wipe a carrier alone in not long time. Something like 50% more damage.
That doe not get anything new or cool to the game, but would be a deterrent to excessive carrier usage.
If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough |
Lady LeJean
Genbuku. Daisho Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 15:01:00 -
[383]
Ok, As a mothership pilot I may be somewhat biased, but I need to put in my 2 cents worth
a) On the topic of limiting the number of fighters a carrier can control without assigning them to team mates. What happened to risk vs reward? .. What i mean by that is that there is already a risk / reward gate in place . Today if I want to sit all pretty and protected by a pos, all i can do is deploy 5 fighters / gangmate and hope they use them properly. But .. if I have the nads to warp that billion isk ship right into harms way onto a gate or station , I get the use of all my drones under my direct control. That sounds balanced to me ..
If the suggestion of limiting control is put into play is implemented, I would go absolutely nuts trying to track who has what and constantly re-deploy fighters based on CTD's and gang changes. Effectively it would cripple the offensive power of a carrier . Sorry but in my humble opinion, if someone is putting out several billion isk to fly one of these things, I should be able to warp to a gate and WTFBBQ some(or several) noobs that are floating around in 100 mil isk ships ... Additionally, in trying to fight a zealot last night I can tell yuo that a carrier is already pretty much useless against smaller ships without tackling support . IT AIN"T Broke .. don't fix it ..
b) I am truley concerened about carriers / motherships lumped into 1 category here .. when I am paying upwards of 20 x the cost of a carrier to be in a MS, sacrificing even my ability to dock, why is the mothership being lumped into this? For the sacrifice and cost, and the name MOTHERSHIP one would expect it to hold a lot of ships, be great for logistics and have a nasty sting if you arbitraritly start shooting at it ..
c) Have you guys actually done carrier combat at any real scale? With the lag and overview bugs that seem to cronically plague the carriers / MS, it is almost impossible to effectively control drones in heavy combat let alone monitor / recal / delegate and engage with wingmen in large scale battles.
In summary .. they work .. leave them .. fix the *** drone problems first and don't lump carriers and motherships into one pile when you smack them with the nerf bat ..
|
Xilimyth Derlin
OldBastardsPub SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 15:03:00 -
[384]
Edited by: Xilimyth Derlin on 24/10/2007 15:04:38
Originally by: Kagura Nikon Another way of nerfing carriers without nerfing is... increase dreadnaught dps. Enough that 1 dread can wipe a carrier alone in not long time. Something like 50% more damage.
That doe not get anything new or cool to the game, but would be a deterrent to excessive carrier usage.
The most common issue that I've heard about Dreadnoughts is that they're practically worthless unless you're in Siege mode. I've even had both corp- and alliance-mates tell me "Go Carriers.... the Dread is worthless unless you become a turret".
Maybe this is the problem. Give Dreads some better capital killing power without needing that 10 minute siege and that perception would go away -_-.
Originally by: Lady LeJean
b) I am truley concerened about carriers / motherships lumped into 1 category here .. when I am paying upwards of 20 x the cost of a carrier to be in a MS, sacrificing even my ability to dock, why is the mothership being lumped into this? For the sacrifice and cost, and the name MOTHERSHIP one would expect it to hold a lot of ships, be great for logistics and have a nasty sting if you arbitraritly start shooting at it ..
I STILL think Motherships should be allowed to dock because of that reason. I mean, I can't imagine the boredom of almost never being able to fly anything else :( -------------------------------------------
Carrier Adjustment Discussion - Take 2 |
sakana
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 15:07:00 -
[385]
So much bitterness. The dev blog sounds good imo.
It's also funny how half the people spamming every thread possible with their whines about the carrier changes are the same people who decimated goons for doing the same a few months ago :P
|
agent apple
Applied Eugenics Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 15:09:00 -
[386]
I Like the idea in principle (as opposed to something worse) however I still have concerns.
All drone using ships can attack all ship classes through selection of their drone size, why is it such an issue that carriers (the largest drone boat) can do this aswell? In fact the new drone bandwidth offers this ability to many ships now just not as a primary offensive weapon.
Logistics ability is something made mute by the introduction of JJ freighters. If you removed all but basic cargo functions from a carrier I doubt anyone would bat an eyelid. So if you make this part of the customization of carriers all carriers will function exactly as they do now, and this negates many of the other reasons you've stated for a nerf aside from the Swiss army knife argument.
So well no doubt be hit harder in other places, so if I want my carrier to be a large death dealing platform, its going to have to be a considerable increase to current abilities to justify it over a BS of which its DPS is currently comparable. Or logistically far greater than a logistics ship.
Heres where we hit a problem, instead of it being jack of all trades, it is now truly master of all (albeit not at the same time) so now there really is no reason to fly any other ship, just fit you carrier for today's assigned role.
Also please make use of the carriers high slots for this customization and don't gimp Caldari. High slots good, mid slots bad ;)
|
Menellaix
Angel of War Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 15:12:00 -
[387]
Edited by: Menellaix on 24/10/2007 15:13:04 Sorry, but I am still a fan of the "nerf it and add alternatives" route. As it is, the carrier is more of an escort carrier than a fleet carrier anyhow...so how about some of the other fleet ships? How about: LSTs which provides the CHA/SMA and can carry pod-pilots through a jump portal, Repair/Hospital Ships that fit a Triage module and nothing else, Smaller Dreadnoughts with Point Defense Systems and Gang-Assist Modules, and Carriers with their striking power which requires the rest of the fleet to direct.
It seems that you want to make the fleet more balanced. Give us some ships with endurance in the battlefield, and glorious battles will result! Oh, and give all capitals +2 warp core strength!
Edit: Formatting
|
Hysidee
Black Avatar
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 15:21:00 -
[388]
Originally by: CCP Abathur Edited by: CCP Abathur on 24/10/2007 14:51:23
Originally by: Druadan 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.
This is actually a pretty clear picture of what we're looking to do: give choices and provide options.
Quote: Now, will it be done via a module? If so, will we get an additional highslot to fit this module in?
We're looking at several different options. Modules that affect the ship itself or affect the fighters it launches are one of them. Slot layouts will likely stay the same but we'll examine that as well.
Quote: 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.
Interesting. Another idea is to look at new 'state' modules similar to the siege and triage modes that provide some sort of special bonuses or abilities with offsetting penalties.
What we are looking to do now is not so much a 'nerf' as it is an evolution of the carrier concept.
My question to the devs is this:
If motherships and carriers are getting nerfed due to being brilliant at everythng, is the same going to happen with titans? Afterall, they have a ship maintenance array, and corp hanger, and are even better at logistics etc than motherships, aswell as being pwning mobiles with drones, doomsday devices and extra large turrets!!
|
Turk Turkletun
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 15:27:00 -
[389]
Edited by: Turk Turkletun on 24/10/2007 15:27:51 Of all the years i've played MMOs, this is the first time i've seen players threatening to quit actually stop (or delay) a "nerf". Not being able to fly a carrier, i cant really speak for the crying masses, but i can tell you what i see: An angry mob of Solopwnmobile pilots scared of having to use more strategy to get kills.
This happens in every MMO. One gameplay aspect gets abused or "overpowered" through a particular use, and then the devs pull out the nerf bat and swing away. Of course there is much crying and "shrinkage" across the community. But eventually everyone adapts and another gameplay item or mechanic is targeted.
Devs you have now opened Pandora's Box. The players now know that you're willing to back down if they urinate'n'moan enough. From now on when you propose a change the crying is only going to get worse and worse.
As all of use players have been told (by a few of you carrier pilots i imagine) Adapt or Die.
|
Xilimyth Derlin
OldBastardsPub SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 15:30:00 -
[390]
Originally by: Turk Turkletun Edited by: Turk Turkletun on 24/10/2007 15:27:51 Of all the years i've played MMOs, this is the first time i've seen players threatening to quit actually stop (or delay) a "nerf". Not being able to fly a carrier, i cant really speak for the crying masses, but i can tell you what i see: An angry mob of Solopwnmobile pilots scared of having to use more strategy to get kills.
This happens in every MMO. One gameplay aspect gets abused or "overpowered" through a particular use, and then the devs pull out the nerf bat and swing away. Of course there is much crying and "shrinkage" across the community. But eventually everyone adapts and another gameplay item or mechanic is targeted.
Devs you have now opened Pandora's Box. The players now know that you're willing to back down if they urinate'n'moan enough. From now on when you propose a change the crying is only going to get worse and worse.
As all of use players have been told (by a few of you carrier pilots i imagine) Adapt or Die.
The trick is, the first nerf was downright unreasonable to even non-carrier pilots (barring the low-sec smartbombed ones ^^)... this one is more stable and sensible.
The last one DESERVED to be nuked O-o. I was analyzing the entire thread and there was an overwhelming 'this is bad'. Heck, even the ideas FOR it wern't promising. :( -------------------------------------------
Carrier Adjustment Discussion - Take 2 |
|
|
|
|
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 |