| 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) |
Trivas
NQX Innovations
Southern Cross Alliance
   |
Posted - 2007.10.24 20:17:00 -
[481]
Having read all of the dev responses to this thread, I must say that the post here are far more explanatory then the blog itself. In both dev blogs the theme seemed to be, "we want to take your fighters away." But having read all the responses in this thread, its more like, "we want to add a mod/rig/otherthingnotyetexisting to the game to replace the bonuses a carrier/MS already receives. Is this an accurate statement?
If so, I think is a fine idea, and makes a carrier more like a BS in that it has a special role, but that is given by the fitting. My only fear is that it will only replace the existing roles and bonuses and not make a specialized carrier any better at its assigned role then a carrier today. If some mod (hopefully an inactive one, not like a siege mod) is to be added then I think it should add more power since you are taking away other aspects.
Also I think this would be a neat idea to think about on some of the other capital ships. Maybe a mod that changes how a Dread behaves but lowers or disables its abilities in some other area (like a siege mod), such as, just as an idea off the top of my head, a Point Defence System, but doesn't allow for any other mods to be activated. There is lots of ways that capital ships can be made more interesting with this mod idea.
|
Raneru
Darwin With Attitude
oooh Shiny
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 20:18:00 -
[482]
 Originally by: Marlona Sky
Originally by: Christopher Multsanti
How funny is it to see some of the so called old gaurd of this game acting like the mission runners of old when the so called "missile nerf" came in.
Its a good thing to nerf carriers, in fact dont hold back on the nerfing, nerf them to kingdom come.
Bring on the Nerf, laugh at whiners, muahahah.
Obviously you didn't speed a year and a lot of hard work and isk into getting a carrier. Your probably one of those guys who always flies the t1 frig with dampeners and sits back and laughs while you risked nothing in the fight to render a 2 billion isk ship and a pilot who worked hard to get it useless.
So how about you train up for a carrier then. I mean if you think 'nerfing them to kingdom come' is a good idea. Get a carrier and fly it. I mean if its still gonna be a great ship after they change it then do it. Well??
Welcome back Chris 
I read the response as "waaa, i spent months training for the ultimate solopwnmobile and now i have to have friends to use it?!"
|
Christopher Multsanti
Maza Nostra
oooh Shiny
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 20:19:00 -
[483]
Originally by: Marlona Sky
Originally by: Christopher Multsanti
How funny is it to see some of the so called old gaurd of this game acting like the mission runners of old when the so called "missile nerf" came in.
Its a good thing to nerf carriers, in fact dont hold back on the nerfing, nerf them to kingdom come.
Bring on the Nerf, laugh at whiners, muahahah.
Obviously you didn't speed a year and a lot of hard work and isk into getting a carrier. Your probably one of those guys who always flies the t1 frig with dampeners and sits back and laughs while you risked nothing in the fight to render a 2 billion isk ship and a pilot who worked hard to get it useless.
So how about you train up for a carrier then. I mean if you think 'nerfing them to kingdom come' is a good idea. Get a carrier and fly it. I mean if its still gonna be a great ship after they change it then do it. Well??
I tried to read what you said but all i heard was "obviously you didn't cry cry cry blah blah blah.
I am training for a carrier on two of my 3 chars, and I am still training for carriers and as far as spending goes, i probably spend more on my vaga than you do on your carrier, keep crying though, its funny. 
Originally by: Emperor D'Hoffryn
/me holds his apoc close while cowering in the corner rocking slowly back and forth.
Im so tired of waiting for my training to pay off.
|
Christopher Multsanti
Maza Nostra
oooh Shiny
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 20:22:00 -
[484]
Originally by: Raneru
Originally by: Marlona Sky
Originally by: Christopher Multsanti
How funny is it to see some of the so called old gaurd of this game acting like the mission runners of old when the so called "missile nerf" came in.
Its a good thing to nerf carriers, in fact dont hold back on the nerfing, nerf them to kingdom come.
Bring on the Nerf, laugh at whiners, muahahah.
Obviously you didn't speed a year and a lot of hard work and isk into getting a carrier. Your probably one of those guys who always flies the t1 frig with dampeners and sits back and laughs while you risked nothing in the fight to render a 2 billion isk ship and a pilot who worked hard to get it useless.
So how about you train up for a carrier then. I mean if you think 'nerfing them to kingdom come' is a good idea. Get a carrier and fly it. I mean if its still gonna be a great ship after they change it then do it. Well??
Welcome back Chris
I read the response as "waaa, i spent months training for the ultimate solopwnmobile and now i have to have friends to use it?!"
Why thank you my man, not quite back yet but soooon, so soon.
And look our responses were almost identical. yarr.
Originally by: Emperor D'Hoffryn
/me holds his apoc close while cowering in the corner rocking slowly back and forth.
Im so tired of waiting for my training to pay off.
|
Marlona Sky
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 20:30:00 -
[485]
What I am worried about is them (even though they say they are not going to) nerfing every aspect of the carrier and then introducing mods to give you the ability to get one aspect of the carrier back.
Like take away the fighters already sortive crappy tracking and damage, and saying, "Here now in order to get the same tracking/HP/Damage your fighters had before, you have to fit 5 of these mods on.'
-or-
We know you liked your 500m3 ship maint. bay (that is imposible to get another ship in combat because usually you are podded before you can grab another) but now the base ship maint bay is now 0m3, and in order to get that size back, you have to fit 5 of these mods'
You know, if carriers were immune or didn't get affected by loser pilots with t1 frigs with damps so severly, you probably would have more carriers on the front line, assigning fighters and focusing on keeping their gang members alive. The triage module gives a 900% bonus to lock time, but nothing to lock range. If you insist on letting people dampen us down to next to nothing lock range and target speed, then if someone drops in triage mode, they should get that 900% to scan time AND lock range. Then they could actually repair people. You cant have drones out in triage so you dont have to worry about someone activating the mod just to get a lock on someone while they are being dampened to have their fighters attack them. Not to mention triage even with the bonus it does give to cap, will still cap out very quickly, add 900% lock range and give a much, much better cap bonus and more carriers will fall into the logistic role that you keep hinting you want to shove down our throat.
If you introduce modules to give buffs to certain things I will be fine with that, but if we have to put on mods to get one aspect of our current carrier back to what it is now, then that will be a horrible mistake. If I will be able to put on a module to increase fighter damage, then it better be a hell of lot more damage than what they currently do because they don't do enough right now in my opinion.
The reason you said you want to get rid of carriers fielding a bunch of drones is because of the web and ecm drones... maybe you should swing the mighty nerf bat at those two drone classes, instead of a whole capital ship, or...
Have the carriers only able to field fighters and make fighters much, much cheaper to make and take less space in the drone bay so they could carry a bunch of fighters, like say... an actual carrier.  Even a Thanatos can lose its 20 fighters very quickly. You made it where they can mwd back to the ship but you mannaged to sneak in the delayed responce nerf to them all. Only one response at a time... you actually thought we would not notice? 
End the end, my carrier is made to bring death on the battlefield at the hands of my fighters, assigned or unassigned, I truely hope it will still be able to do this after it is all said and done. 
|
Raneru
Darwin With Attitude
oooh Shiny
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 20:35:00 -
[486]
Originally by: Marlona Sky
You know, if carriers were immune or didn't get affected by loser pilots with t1 frigs with damps so severly, you probably would have more carriers on the front line, assigning fighters and focusing on keeping their gang members alive. The triage module gives a 900% bonus to lock time, but nothing to lock range. If you insist on letting people dampen us down to next to nothing lock range and target speed, then if someone drops in triage mode, they should get that 900% to scan time AND lock range. Then they could actually repair people. You cant have drones out in triage so you dont have to worry about someone activating the mod just to get a lock on someone while they are being dampened to have their fighters attack them. Not to mention triage even with the bonus it does give to cap, will still cap out very quickly, add 900% lock range and give a much, much better cap bonus and more carriers will fall into the logistic role that you keep hinting you want to shove down our throat.
I agree with that, triage mode should make you immune to EW like siege mode.
|
Marlona Sky
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 20:40:00 -
[487]
Edited by: Marlona Sky on 24/10/2007 20:41:04
Originally by: Raneru
Originally by: Marlona Sky
You know, if carriers were immune or didn't get affected by loser pilots with t1 frigs with damps so severly, you probably would have more carriers on the front line, assigning fighters and focusing on keeping their gang members alive. The triage module gives a 900% bonus to lock time, but nothing to lock range. If you insist on letting people dampen us down to next to nothing lock range and target speed, then if someone drops in triage mode, they should get that 900% to scan time AND lock range. Then they could actually repair people. You cant have drones out in triage so you dont have to worry about someone activating the mod just to get a lock on someone while they are being dampened to have their fighters attack them. Not to mention triage even with the bonus it does give to cap, will still cap out very quickly, add 900% lock range and give a much, much better cap bonus and more carriers will fall into the logistic role that you keep hinting you want to shove down our throat.
I agree with that, triage mode should make you immune to EW like siege mode.
You know if they would only include the lock range bonus, then carriers could do away with the sensor boosters and fit more cap rechargers and not get capped out so fast. There could be some other tweaks to the Triage module, but is this not an easy thing to add and put it in the right direction? Devs? Players?
|
Lucifer66
Gallente
DEATHFUNK
Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 20:45:00 -
[488]
Balance...yeah right. Looking at the new ships on the test server I can see the balance excuse is total bull.
If you really were interested in balance then you'd take away 2/3 of the guns on all other ships and make it so that you when you shoot at a ship it's guns would get destroyed like the fighters of a carrier. That would be balance. Instead the new ships get super bonuses to all thier guns making them the new pwn-all-mobiles. It's clear to me the balance you refer to is to balance skills so as to keep us jumping to train skills in a vain effort to fly something cool till ya come along and nerf it soon as we do.
So tell me...once we train up for these new ships that will take months to fly for most ppl, are you gonna nerf them too cuz they are too powerfull? Well I for one have had it with training for stuff only to have it nerfed in the next patch.
|
Zachri
Minmatar
IVC Consortium
INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 20:48:00 -
[489]
Just don't let this happen ...
|
FalconHawk
Amarr
Shadow Rebellion
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 20:52:00 -
[490]
Right carriers can do alot of stuff ... but mostly not at the same time.
And there are not only big alliances out there that field 40+ carriers at once, maybe you should think about small corps too that have spent alot of isk and time to get one. Some even run missions in them and now always should need a wingmen? Another try to force teamplay and that big toys are only for groups ....
motherships are uber cause of their ew immunity, but carriers ... one dampening ship can render it completly useless and you want to nerf it even more
you have nerfed my curse, pilgrim, now carrier, new amarr t2 ships mostly suck ....i¦m so happy that i can buy GTCs with isk and not spend my RL money for this game anymore
|
|
|
Gallant Nose
MAFIA
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 20:53:00 -
[491]
The thing that angers me most is that you don't really appear to be listening to the player base - your paying customers. You don't seem to realise that carriers and motherships are not overpowered. They can perform numerous roles, but they're not overpowered because of this. They are easily countered and while they have fairly heavy tanks (which of course they should do because they're expensive ships) they can still be taken down with fairly few numbers. But of course, a carrier can shred a battleship in mere seconds. Wrong. A single battleship can tank a carrier of fighters. This is fact. It might be a different story for a mothership of carriers, but shouldn't it be?!! We're talking 20billion+ isk ships. You've admitted you've lead thousands of players down a path you didn't want them to, well now is the time to accept that and accept the way these ships operate now because this change is not right.
---
|
Rob Adams
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 21:00:00 -
[492]
The thing that angers me most is that you don't really appear to be listening to the devs. You don't seem to realise that carriers and motherships being overpowered or not is not the issue. The fact that they can serve so many roles fresh out of the shop is the issue they are addressing. Their innate diversity at the moment makes them too popular and also goes against the prevailing ethos of the game that each ship needs fitted for an intended role.
|
Naga Elohim
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 21:02:00 -
[493]
Originally by: Thargor II
Edited by: Thargor II on 24/10/2007 19:32:24
Originally by: Naga Elohim
OK im going to say this because no one has. If your carrier is being damped by a frigate that you cant hit youre not very intelligent because you bring a frigate or frigates with you to pop the damper thats causing you to have a 9k lock range. Your support takes care of things like that. Thats why a carrier must always utilize its support group. LOOK UP THE DEFINITION AND ROLES OF AN AIRCRAFT CARRIER!!!!!
Like theyre supposed to, carriers rely on support. If you are in- capacitated by a single frigate then you should re-examine your tacticts. Bring support! Using them for solo pvp is kind of going against its design specifications and i understand exactly what CCP is saying. DO you see the USS Nimitz soloing a Russian Fleet? Not at all. It would be pwned. Thats why you have other ships to defend and scan out for hostiles.
Those of you who simply would like to roam around defeating anything and everything on your own, go play World of Warcraft.
And please stop whining. Arent we all supposed to be adults? Im tired of seeing people in here crying about this. After the fix, I bet 1 billion isk that half of you people will shut up because you will be much better off.
Hey guy, I am not sure if you actually play eve or just rant on forums against well thought out posts. Clearly you are not reading what the people here are saying. No one is saying that carriers "should" be able to solo gank everything. We are saying they are already vulnerable entities when solo. You have also made inaccurate comments about carriers "roaming" around in a gank squad. Do you realize they have to have support ships to open cyno portals in target systems for them, key being "support". These are all currently implemented in the game and need no fixing. Also, when a cyno is generated in a system it is displayed on the map and also on anyone in that system's overview. If you wanted to jump in 20 moms into a system to gank it and 40 BSs were sniping you from 180k and taking your fighters out to a POS with a bubble near it to kill them you would lose all your moms.
Everyone in this thread except the small minority understand what this dev blog is talking about. We see now what CCP "says" they want to do but many people are still worried that what is being said and what will happen are not the same thing. No one wants to see carriers become more powerful in a purely 1 player directing the fire power way, but we also don't want to see carriers become even more vulnerable to getting locked down by a frigate and an interceptor.
I do hope you either read some posts more thoroughly or actually login to the game and join some fleet battles so you will have some experience upon which to draw. Anyways, I hope you stop posting rants against other constructive posts while trying to bring in references that have no business in this thread. If you have an actual viable idea why don't you post it instead of what you have been doing.
Im responding to the carrier pilots that keep talking about carriers being damped by small frigates and the ones who talk about cancelling thier accounts because of this. Those are obviously solo carrier players. CCP is compensating by allowing pilots to do more in one area by specialization. I join many fleet battles and i have much experience in that area. That is why i am backing CCP on this because i have seen carriers going solo and being very successful. If they had the fleet to back them, they wouldnt even worry about frigs or intys locking them down or losing fighters or the ship itself. Yes carriers are already vulnerable to many types of attacks but that can be easily countered if they use thier support. Support closes all the holes you have.
The issue is a carrier being used solo, and that goes against the design and purpose of a carrier in my opinion.
|
Inflexible
Rytiri Lva
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 21:05:00 -
[494]
Originally by: Trass
"CCP Nozh:
The problem is not that Carriers and Motherships are overpowered"
hahaha looool single nano-lachesis (gal recon) can exclude your 'overpowered' carriers from everything. He will damp you so targeting wont be an option, he will scramble you so warping/jumping away also wont be an option. Also he will be so fast that your overpowered fighters wont be able to kill him :]
Marked important word for you
Originally by: Cordial Reloaded
quote from te devblog:
"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."
Do u think "i am sorry" will just cut it ?
i've spend 5 months training for a carrier and trying to get decent skils for it and now that i can finaly fly one accordingly i find out that its goan be nerfed.
Months spent by training something that will be nerfed is not biggest problem to me. Biggest problem for me is fact that I lost faith in my future in EVE. My skills are going to be in vain because "something" is wrong and "something, actually does not matter what" will be nerfed. First it was "damage uberness", then versatility. It is not same as NOS nerf, passive tank nerf, torp change (I don't call it nerf) - all these cases had their problem identified, preciely named and some more or less optimum solution was found. I still don't understand why I have to lose one year training on my alt to change, which is probably driven by need to make game nicer to new subscribers.
Saying "Sorry" is step in right direction, but original Zuluparks blog and SiSi local is not easily forgotten.
Long story short - I'm not losing history, but I'm losing faith in future.
PS: Sorry for terrible english
|
Nerigal
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 21:06:00 -
[495]
Edited by: Nerigal on 24/10/2007 21:09:51
meh the truth is CCP is to lazy to upgrade there server to reduce lag in fight so they nerf or well "try to control the amount of drone" ?
well im ****ed whit all the lazy nerf...just waitting a other space mmo to trash eve-online.
enough is enough
|
The Ventrue
Ventrue Holdings
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 21:06:00 -
[496]
Originally by: CCP kieron
1. The community's response to potential changes to a favorite ship has been more fierce than we expected.
2. We've listened to the feedback, discussed the proposed changes and have another proposed list of changes.
However, that does not change the core idea behind the change to Carriers [...].
Originally by: CCP Nozh
Q: So Iæm not nerfed today but in 3 months instead?
A: Yes [...]
Ok. So you aren't very proficient at public relations and market research (common issues with companies in your and adjecent industries). And I won't even go into Eve Store (how many years has it been like this now?) or "Must be Eve Store" ads from one of recent tournaments... *sigh*
I'm really curious though - where did you get those ideas from? Your coming up with new features to keep the interest going is great and much appreciated but - as:
- an owner of 9 accounts
- who's been around since beginnings back in 2003 and
- owns a mothership, carrier and a dread**
I find myself a bit surprised by - in my opinion - poor judgement and basing your assumptions on - again, in my humble opinion - poor quality research. Or did you just pull the numbers... you know from where? :) Fortune 100 companies do that sometimes so I wouldn't be utterly shocked - I just had a MUCH higher opinion about your efforts until recently.
**Only... 5-10% of my ingame time is spent in (super)caps so I'm not trying to protect my favorite part of Eve :) |
Xilimyth Derlin
OldBastardsPub
SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 21:08:00 -
[497]
DEV Team: Not everyone is going to enjoy these changes to the extent of liking the 'new' carrier. Some are going to downright hate it as you know.
In every other MMO that's ever changed drastically, there have been one time respecs. I understand this goes against the fundamental lifeblood of EVE, but given the time it takes for these, how hard would it be to meet half way and give the really dissatisfied a one time chance during a month to trade SP on a 1 for 1 basis for every capital related skill beyond 'Advanced Spaceship Command' so they can take that road not taken?
It may not be the same as flying the carrier, but it'll give them the ability to do something else they were planning or even remotely curious at in light of this.
-------------------------------------------
Carrier Adjustment Discussion - Take 2 |
The Ventrue
Ventrue Holdings
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 21:12:00 -
[498]
And just curious - how is work on the Vampire game going? No, I'm not making fun (although it would explain :) ) - an honest question.
I hope that you don't turn into SOE (after SWG and recent Vanguard) I'll never look at one of their creations ever again. |
Hul'ka
Minmatar
BALKAN EXPRESS
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 21:14:00 -
[499]
½I join many fleet battles and i have much experience in that area.+
Why is that people that support the idea are alts from half of one year old, and talking of experience?
It would be more legit if that experience was backed up by at least two years of playing, like all those carrier pilots here have and I would say they know what they are talking about.
No, I don’t fly carrier yet, and by the looks of it I probably won’t…
|
Miasia
Konstrukteure der Zukunft
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 21:28:00 -
[500]
CCP: You should have thought before the introduction of carriers. Now, regardless what you do, all carrierpilots (including me) will hate you for every change you make to them.
My conclusion:
Tabula Rasa, is going online in a few days. So lets see if CCP will get more bucks out of my pocket.
|
|
|
Cavalera
Caldari
AWE Corporation
Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 21:30:00 -
[501]
OK,
You forgetting a few things here..
1. POS fueling, this is because freighters suck, paper thin tin cans.
2. Carriers have one very big weakness.. they MUST jump to other systems. This means that in order to use it you have to have someone open a cyno in every system you need to get to. This is a major pain in the butt and it is suppose to be that way. Fueling POS's or Ratting requires someone or an alt to run around with you. We used to use carriers to fuel some POS's in local systems but stopped once jump bridges were added.
3. Carriers are FAR from master of all trades.. I have yet to get a kill mail from my carrier fights.. why?? Because the other ships in the fleet pop the ships before my fighters can get to them. I use fighters for my protection and use my carrier for support.
4. A carrier is just that... a CARRIER.. yes they carry alot of drones and limited fighters but REMEMBER that we can only control so many at a time. You say you do not want carriers to kill other smaller ships easy. Its NOT easy... you looking at 1 minute lock times on small vessels and you can forget it if they have EWAR support since you cannot lock them for several minutes.
Why must you make a carrier and then complain that it is used like a carrier.... you make no sense and the sheer number of posts in several forums about this shows that.
|
Gallant Nose
MAFIA
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 21:32:00 -
[502]
Originally by: Rob Adams
The thing that angers me most is that you don't really appear to be listening to the devs. You don't seem to realise that carriers and motherships being overpowered or not is not the issue. The fact that they can serve so many roles fresh out of the shop is the issue they are addressing. Their innate diversity at the moment makes them too popular and also goes against the prevailing ethos of the game that each ship needs fitted for an intended role.
If you weren't quite so ignorant you'd have read my post properly and highlighted the sentence 'They can perform numerous roles, but they're not overpowered because of this' which correlates nicely with the sentence '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 the dev blog. Carriers were orignally released with this multi-role ability and were not and are not overpowered in any one of these roles, nor even when taking all the roles as a whole. If you had read my post you would have noticed that I pointed out thousands of players trained for these ships because of their abilities. I believe it is wrong for CCP to drastically change these ships, removing a huge element of fun and diversity (rightfully so and not overpowered) from the game and this class of vessel.
---
|
Faith Rose
Amarr
Evolution
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 21:38:00 -
[503]
 So if this nerf go ends up going though years of capital training would reduced to nothing but waste.
You reward the new players but restrict the vets why?
I'll support making carriers be only able to field Fighters, just give us new fighters types.
"How do you kill... that which has no life?"
|
Young Buck
Contraband Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 21:49:00 -
[504]
Originally by: War Bear
At no time do I want any other pilot touching fighters that don't belong to him especially when a 5 pack of them cost more than a tier 2 battleship. Why should a carrier not be able to control his own fighters? Why the need for wingman? Gah ...
CCP get real, War Bear has it exactly right here, maybe if you paid attention you would get a clue. This is a carrier, and carriers by definition should be able to field hordes or drones as they please and control them on their own!!! And by the way, carriers are good at a lot of things but guess what? I put in billions of isk for that ability. And no CCP, you cannot do 10 things with them all at once and be awesome at every one just fyi. Simple as they are not the be all end all of EVE. To all of you who whine about getting ganked by a carrier or mother ship I ask you this: Whould you like some cheese with that whine?
|
Kalda Centauri
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 22:01:00 -
[505]
If the reason is Carrier's and Mom's support too many rolls, wouldn't it be better to design new cap ships, each which specializes in those rolls?
|
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 22:06:00 -
[506]
I would love to agree with you ccp but carriers aren't broken, the only whines i have seen are about mom gate camps in lowsec. as it is now small battleship gangs can blow up a carrier.
if you want use a god character and see if a 10 man gang can blow you up on sisi.... say hello to Mr. Arazu
ps. amarr hasnt gotten its oomph yet
|
Leya Marcsson
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 22:17:00 -
[507]
Edited by: Leya Marcsson on 24/10/2007 22:20:54
*wrong thread* sorry
|
Rangercameron2
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 22:28:00 -
[508]
Thanatos Description:
Sensing the need for a more moderately-priced version of the Nyx, Federation Navy authorities commissioned the design of the Thanatos. Designed to act primarily as a fighter carrier for small- to mid-scale engagements, its significant defensive capabilities and specially-fitted fighter bays make it ideal for its intended purpose.
Nidhoggur Description:
Essentially a pared-down version of its big brother the Hel, the Nidhoggur nonetheless displays the same austerity of vision evident in its sibling. Quite purposefully created for nothing less than all-out warfare, and quite comfortable with that fact, the Nidhoggur will no doubt find itself a mainstay on many a battlefield.
Chimera Description:
The ChimeraÆs design is based upon the Kairiola, a vessel holding tremendous historical significance for the Caldari. Initially a water freighter, the Kairiola was refitted in the days of the Gallente-Caldari war to act as a fighter carrier during the orbital bombardment of Caldari Prime.
Archon Description:
The Archon was commissioned by the Amarr Navy to act as a personnel and fighter carrier. The order to create the ship came as part of a unilateral initative issued by Navy Command in the wake of Emperor Kor-AzorÆs assassination. Sporting the latest in fighter command interfacing technology and possessing characteristically strong defenses, the Archon is a powerful aid in any engagement.
Can someone please tell me where in any of these ship's descriptions you can find that they are really supposed to be Logistics Ships - sitting on the sidelines remote repping it's gangmates? All I can see from each description is that they are supposed to be Fighter Carriers delivering death and destruction to enemies - not one word about being some kind of gang supprt ship.
|
Gyle
Caldari
Knights of Chaos
Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 22:34:00 -
[509]
Originally by: Gridwalker
I think there are two issues primary issues here:
1. There is a sense that the developers don't have any actual "live" experience with the carriers. The overwhelming response seems to be that your ideas would be great, if your assumptions were correct, but while it looks good on paper, in practice things just don't work that way. For example, delegation sounds great on paper, except that in major fleet engagements it is impossible and often unwise to do.
2. You are about to make sweeping changes to the game with Rev 3. Many new ship types, drone bandwidth, drone AI changes, a new engine, hopefully some more need-for-speed. You have no idea how these changes are going to affect things that are already out there. Why would you even think about changing carriers until you see how rev 3 affects them?
Let's just take a look at some of the changes that might affect carriers:
- Drone AI changes. How will the new drone AI make a carrier pilot's job easier? How will it make it harder? If drones don't do ANYTHING until commanded, for example, is it practical to manually command your drones with 60 seconds of lag?
- Drone bandwidth. Will carrier pilots be able to use bandwidth to their advantage, more effectively deploying a mix of drones to perform different tasks? Or does lag in fleet combat prevent the tactical deployment of drones?
- Jump Freighters. One of the primary roles of carriers in non-fleet combat is jumping goods, minerals and fuel. Will the Rorqual take over mineral jumping and jump freighters take over jumping goods and fuel, removing a primary role for carriers? Or will carriers still be considered an import part of moving goods and fuel?
- Black Ops. Will having battleships that can jump on their own remove the role of motherships and carriers for transporting/jumping ships to the front lines?
- Heavy interdictors. Will heavy interdictors be a serious threat to carriers and mother ships?
- New ships in general. Will any of the new ships be a threat to carriers, both in the sense of being able to disable and destroy them, and in the sense of taking away some of the carriers' and mothership roles?
- The new GUI. Will it be able to allow carrier and mothership pilots to effectively control their fighters in a fleet situation? During heavy lag? Will it allow them to provide proper support? During heavy lag? Will their support ships be able to actually support them during heavy lag?
There are so many new variables that are being introduced with Rev 3. Thinking about "balancing" carriers right now should be the last thing on your minds. You need to be thinking about fleet combat in general, and about how lag in fleet combat affects your "perfect world" of how fleet combat should be.
Oh, and for the record... I can't imagine that a carrier should be anything other than much more powerful than a single battleship, or even several battleships. I can't imagine that a carrier can't defend itself in at least a basic way. And I can't imagine that there can be so many easy ways of shutting down a carrier completely by a very small group and it still be considered "overpowered".
You need to get yourselves into some carriers or motherships on transquility and see how they really work in real combat situations, especially in lagged fleet battles. At the very least, you need to figure out how to simulate the heavy lag situations experienced on tranquility on your test and development servers!
-Grid
nicely articulated.
|
War Bear
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 22:46:00 -
[510]
Edited by: War Bear on 24/10/2007 22:46:34
Originally by: Naga Elohim
Im responding to the carrier pilots that keep talking about carriers being damped by small frigates and the ones who talk about cancelling thier accounts because of this. Those are obviously solo carrier players. CCP is compensating by allowing pilots to do more in one area by specialization. I join many fleet battles and i have much experience in that area. That is why i am backing CCP on this because i have seen carriers going solo and being very successful. If they had the fleet to back them, they wouldnt even worry about frigs or intys locking them down or losing fighters or the ship itself. Yes carriers are already vulnerable to many types of attacks but that can be easily countered if they use thier support. Support closes all the holes you have.
The issue is a carrier being used solo, and that goes against the design and purpose of a carrier in my opinion.
Bolded the relevant bits.
- Obviously solo pilots? Try fleet carrier pilots saying these "fixes" are bull****.
- Carriers are NOT great solo ships. At the very least you need cyno buddys to work with. On top of that a solo carrier is a dead carrier. Maybe the carrier pilots you've seen have gotten lucky but drop a solo carrier or mom in front of my alliance or AAA or BoB and you'll see how great they are solo.
Everything is funny with the Benny Hill theme song |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 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 |