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

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

New Dev Blog, Nozh on Carriers Redux, Part II

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 17 post(s)
Kublai Khan Caldari TAOSP Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.10.25 10:08:00 - [601] What does this have to do with Carriers As I said in the beginning: CCP is worried that we’ll end up with Capital only gangs. That carriers that can rep each other and deal a lot of damage, while nuking small ships that comes into their smartbomb range. Again, I fully understand that and I don’t think anyone wants to see EVE as a Captials Online game. CCP have stated that they would want carriers to be more reliant on support. They don’t want to see 50 carrier gangs nuking everything around them. But looking at the drawbacks with a carrier as stated before, immobile, expensive to operate, slow targeting, delayed damage, destroyable damage, dampening vulnerability, they aren’t as powerful solo as many have stated. They usually die. So what is it that lets a group of carriers be so powerful? Example The only reason why a Carrier group can be cyno’ed in to attack a group of hostiles attacking a pos for example with little support, is because there is one ship in the game that can keep everything attacking stuck for a while. While most battleships etc can possibly get out, dread for sure won’t, even with very little support for the carriergang. They can have a 2-3 dictors in the system that bubble the dreads / bs and then a covert cynos in carriers and the attacking group will be molested. Even if the carriers didn’t have much support. This is *, and it’s not the carriers that it’s the imba ship here. It’s again the interdictor. Another Example** Still a huge fight going on, there is lots of battleships with support protecting dreads shooting a tower, in this situation we’d also have lots and lots of lag. It still only takes two dictors to drop a bubble on battleship gang and dread gang for the carriers to get a lot of kills. The lag makes it hard for battleships that are bubbled to warp out, and some of the carriers will manage to lock dreads/battleships and in that situation and those will die since the fighters will do their job. But in situations like these youll need a bunch of support on your own as well. But without support on the field There are ways to counter carriers as described in their weaknesses, u just have to make their fighters die. This brings me over to another problem where you see big groups of carriers. The lag makes it hard to defend against the carriers. The dreads can defend themselves tho, they just have to do one thing. Remove one gun and fit a smartbomb. If a fighterbomb goes into 15-20 dreads sitting there with their smarties on, the fighters will simply vanish. Same can be said with sniping battleships if the lag permit it. They could target the fighters on approach. They could have smartbombs fitted, but due to lag its suicide to activate them. They could have a few apoc move 20km towards the carriers and activate smarties when the fighters approach. They could have stealthbombers nuking the fighters attacking dreads or battleships. The lag however, as many have stated, makes using the anti fighters options available impossible to use and that’s why many in BoB, MC, Shiva, GS and so on, have stated that its fine, reduce the amount of fighters one can launch but up their damage and HP. It would help some.
Zachstar Combined Planetary Union	Posted - 2007.10.25 10:11:00 - [602] Edited by: Zachstar on 25/10/2007 10:13:25 Originally by: Kagura Nikon This thread is full of stupid chidls that did not even read the secodn dev blog tryign to understadn it and keep callign names and cursing sayign its the worst idea ever , even when there is no clear idea on the second dev blog. Make a service for yourselves, Shut up, go outside, dig a hoel in garden and bury yourselves on it! I strongly suggest you seek help from a professional. I'm being serious! You sound(to me, I am not a professional do not take anything I say to be final. I am not responsible) like you need to be examined.
Kublai Khan Caldari TAOSP Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.10.25 10:13:00 - [603] To get to and end here I’ve pointed on the dictor as a ship that promotes blobbing, keeps ppl from engaging and lets carriers with little support engage hostiles. One shipclass that alone removed the need for much other support in many situations and thus allow more of carriers and battleships in fleets. I’ve also pointed at lag caused by fighters and others as a problem to utilize the defense one have at ones disposal. So what to do? Dictors First Id change the dictor in one way or another so that more support on the field to hold things in place like in the good old day. This will reduce the amount of battleships or carriers in gangs. Id also change it in such a way that we won’t see the total hell death situations occur and let ppl have a chance of winning without a dictor. No more always warping into fleetcombat with “dictors only overview”. To do this one can either do and other ways as well probably: Change it to work like heavy dictors do. Make its bubble die if the dictor dies or warps off grid. Make its bubble only have a anti capital jumping function, but let the warp scrambling be done by the new interceptors (yay for changing them btw!) and other support (my fav) and also let its bubble then work in low sec!. The Carriers themselves? Personally I’d just reduce the efficiency of remote reppers to half of what it is today, and increase the bonus of triage to compensate. This will reduce the amount of “spider tanking” that ppl have referred to. There have been other suggestions I think the devs should look at as well: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=620431. The specialization you talk about is good as well I guess and if needed on top of changing dictors. Just don’t reduce the carrier ability to heal itself and do damage like it can today! Then I think a lot of ppl will be outstandingly annoyed and leave the game. Increase their cost if you want to same as dreads and make Capitals in general uninsurable, or all of 0.0 warfare, which is what I’d do! Insurance sux. What will this accomplish? I think PvP in 0.0 with our without carriers will be more fun. I think ppl will engage more often than they do now. It will reduce the amount of pure damage dealers in fleets, be it battleships or carriers, and it will increase the usefulness of new players that can’t fly T2 ships yet. An actual need for support! What will it not do? It will not screw over players that have spent years to train for carriers and spent hundreds of hours gathering ISK and paid for many accounts to achieve that. It’s a small change to dictors that can be easily changed again and shouldn’t involve any changing of new coding. If you change the remote reps of carriers as well, then that’s also a small change of balancing that ppl will understand. Changing dictors alone will remove some scenarios where carriers can replace battleships without support,like jumping in a huge carrier fleet with limited support to gank ppl, but not all of them and more work on carriers might be needed. With the specialization proposal put out by CCP and members of the community Im looking forward to see how it pans out. But I do feel that changing the dictors and cut down on the amount of lag is a big step in making carriers less efficient and increase the use of support. It will not fix EVE’s economy either as pointed out in Yaay’s thread: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=619019 – At least remove insurance of capitals and battleships in 0.0 :S *Give ppl an incentive to bring more support of all kinds to battle instead of nerfing carriers* Carriers and Battleships duking it out killing eachother with support scrambling and killing eacother seems fun. http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=619942
Lazuran Gallente Time And ISK Sink Corporation	Posted - 2007.10.25 10:23:00 - [604] Edited by: Lazuran on 25/10/2007 10:22:51 Originally by: Seleene Open your minds a bit and consider the potential for some of what is being suggested. Go back and actually read some of the replies in this thread and the blog. New siege-like mods? New fighters? More damage? But I might lose the ability to tank or use my ship maint array?? OHNOES!! Like I care anyway. I laugh at your nanvetT ... we will simply get the same nerf that CCP had originally planned for reasons we will not be told, packaged in pretty modules. If anything, these 2 threads have proven that the game is not shaped by the players or by devs playing the game like we do, but presumably by the janitor. If Carriers cannot do > 1200 DPS or tank > 3000 DPS anymore at the same time, it'll be a nerf. "...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)
Faridah Solar Storm Sev3rance	Posted - 2007.10.25 10:27:00 - [605] On the topic of reason to change the carriers I'm in no doubt CCP is honest saying it's the multipurpose joker they want to be rid of.. Which I do understand. But, I'll mention this anyway. The Corp hangars on a carrier is taking like 20 sec to open in a system with no load at all and just a few items there. Put 100 non-stacked items in there and you are looking at > 1 minute before it load. What's up with that ?
Kagura Nikon Minmatar MASS HOMICIDE Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.10.25 10:36:00 - [606] Originally by: Lazuran Edited by: Lazuran on 25/10/2007 10:22:51 Originally by: Seleene Open your minds a bit and consider the potential for some of what is being suggested. Go back and actually read some of the replies in this thread and the blog. New siege-like mods? New fighters? More damage? But I might lose the ability to tank or use my ship maint array?? OHNOES!! Like I care anyway. I laugh at your nanvetT ... we will simply get the same nerf that CCP had originally planned for reasons we will not be told, packaged in pretty modules. If anything, these 2 threads have proven that the game is not shaped by the players or by devs playing the game like we do, but presumably by the janitor. If Carriers cannot do > 1200 DPS or tank > 3000 DPS anymore at the same time, it'll be a nerf. Laughing at Seleene is usually not wise... unles syou are evil thug.. At least some peopel are able to read and use comprehension skills. This wilbe a Buff/ nerf mixed. A very good thing. If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
Lazuran Gallente Time And ISK Sink Corporation	Posted - 2007.10.25 10:37:00 - [607] Originally by: Kublai Khan ... stuff ... Nice explanation why CCP ought to work on LAG, not on nerfing Carriers or Interdictors. By "working on LAG" I do not mean "claiming to be throwing millions of dollars on it and rewriting the graphics engine", but "producing visible results". "...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)
Kagura Nikon Minmatar MASS HOMICIDE Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.10.25 10:38:00 - [608] Originally by: Zachstar Edited by: Zachstar on 25/10/2007 10:13:25 Originally by: Kagura Nikon This thread is full of stupid chidls that did not even read the secodn dev blog tryign to understadn it and keep callign names and cursing sayign its the worst idea ever , even when there is no clear idea on the second dev blog. Make a service for yourselves, Shut up, go outside, dig a hoel in garden and bury yourselves on it! I strongly suggest you seek help from a professional. I'm being serious! You sound(to me, I am not a professional do not take anything I say to be final. I am not responsible) like you need to be examined. thank by your concern, but i have a therapist for the last 7 years, and by her words i am VERY GOOD on being ratinal and capable of annalysing situations wihtout letinng irrational emotions obscure my poitn of view. Now maybe YOu shoudl go see a therapist. If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
Kublai Khan Caldari TAOSP Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.10.25 10:43:00 - [609] Geez guys, cant you keep stuff not related to the topic out of the thread? Find another thread to be bored in
aquontium Gallente Fourth Circle Total Comfort	Posted - 2007.10.25 11:02:00 - [610] Originally by: Kublai Khan Carriers:You can disable a carrier using: 3 damps. Also despite CCPÆs wish, Carriers canÆt be used efficiently as support vessels in fleetfights due to lag. Actually, it's because as soon as you stick one on the front line it gets damped, and even if it doesn't, in the 'call X primary and focus fire' world of blob warfare, whatever you want to rep is gone by the time you start repping it, and if you do rep it, they just change targets and kill something else!

Greenwing SuX ltd. Rare Faction	Posted - 2007.10.25 11:07:00 - [611] Allthough i like the idea of a carrier with multiple roles i don't understand why this change is so important. I just fail to see how the carrier is a master of all trades. Most of the items i see in the blog are about moving goods which points will be void once the new jumpdrive freighters are out. The only reason carriers are being used for transport is because there's no good alternative (i might hope the new jumpdrive freighters will be better at moving goods then a carrier) So with the transport role out of the question we have a ship which doesn't do much damage, can tank very good and is a good logistics ship (too bad it's usually dampened to being useless for logistics) and it will go down without support. If i look at the blog that's exactly how the devs want it to be. The only thing i read in the blog which can be a problem is that a carrier is too effective against smaller sized ships (ever seen what a domi/other droneship can do ?). This is solved by making more types of fighters (like with drones and maybe even have some larger/smaller sizes where larger use more bandwith and are better against capships) The only time when a carrier doesn't need other support is when they are in a gang of carriers but i don't see the proposed changes change that. The other problem (MOMs in lowsec) is also not solved with these changes so what is being done about that ?
infinityshok	Posted - 2007.10.25 11:15:00 - [612] Originally by: Seleene Edited by: Seleene on 25/10/2007 08:23:45 Seriously, all you people ***ing need to get a grip and calm down, and that goes especially for members of my alliance. The first blog was a nightmare, granted. Forcing delegation of fighters was just... ugh. However this new one is much more clear and has gotten a lot dev attention. They are in here and answering your questions and all some of you can do is still whine and moan. Carriers have been the same for two years now. A LOT of things have happened in the last two years in EVE. New ships, new tactics, new POS warfare... Anyone who has played EVE for long knows that if there's one thing you can count on it's change. Is it any wonder that CCP is looking at these ships now? I'd personally like to see some mothership-specific stuff. The Remote ECM burst is useless. How about some other cool modules for moms? Because the fact is that, aside from EW immunity, motherships are nothing more than big carriers. Two Thanatoes can do the same thing my flagship can for a fraction of the cost and are fully insurable to boot! Anyone feel like telling me that I don't know WTF I'm talking about? Go right ahead. Open your minds a bit and consider the potential for some of what is being suggested. Go back and actually read some of the replies in this thread and the blog. New siege-like mods? New fighters? More damage? But I might lose the ability to tank or use my ship maint array?? OHNOES!! Like I care anyway. Bring on the new stuff, says I! Until it hits TQ or a final state on SiSi, this is all just a bunch of speculation. If CCP **s it up, then I'll go nuts. Until then, everyone needs to stop running around screaming like someone is trying to take away your favorite doll and actually post something constructive. - The devs have already stated their clear intentions on a carrier 'nerf' have been delayed...not eliminated. - This topic has rec'd dev attention due to the extreme response of the player base which is how it should be. The devs want to potentially damage a favorite toy so the players responded appropriately and constructively. - New stuff is fine. Severely damaging the capabilities of such a popular ship class is not. Some of the suggestions from the devs are fine however the overall 'nerf' is not.
Kerfira	Posted - 2007.10.25 11:16:00 - [613] Edited by: Kerfira on 25/10/2007 11:18:21 Originally by: Greenwing i might hope the new jumpdrive freighters will be better at moving goods then a carrier They most likely won't. Sure, they have 3 times the cargo-space of carriers, but they also cost 3x as much as a carrier, and has only 2/3 the range! For refuelling a POS network, the carrier will most likely still be used. For moving peoples personal ships around the same as the carrier doesn't need a station to provide replacement ships. And, of.c. the most bulky, disposable items carried around are fighters, which the carrier can carry 20 of in addition to everything else. Personally I think the jump freighters is inferior to carriers in too many ways. Particularly the limited jump range will make matters fall in the carriers favor! EDIT: I wonder how many of the 10000 carriers CCP mentioned are actually used in combat, and how many are just used as haulers..... I know mine is (though I'm actively training to get the skills to fight it).... 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.
infinityshok	Posted - 2007.10.25 11:18:00 - [614] Edited by: infinityshok on 25/10/2007 11:20:55 Edited by: infinityshok on 25/10/2007 11:19:06 Originally by: Kagura Nikon blah blah No one cares about your many mental deformities and psychological defects. You mentioned reading comprehension...use some yourself and stick to the topic. And use the effing built in spell checker.
eL'eM Dark Nebula Krypteins Dark Nebula Galactic Empire	Posted - 2007.10.25 11:35:00 - [615] Quote: These days, there are 10000 carriers in the game according to that dev blog, and weÆve seen fleet battles with 40 û 50 carriers in system at one time. When 10% of the ships in system are carriers, you know somethingÆs not right. One of the major selling/marketing points of this game is the huge fleet battles (and I donÆt want to go into lag at the moment, thatÆs a whole different issue which should be helped in the next update, fingers crossed) The thing is I believe CCP want a balanced fleet involving players of all skill levels. So you have the majority of the fleet made up of battleships and lower, (ships which everyone can fly) and a handful of capitals, and maybe 1 or 2 supercaps as well, with each type of ship having a role to play in the fleet. Instead what weÆve been seeing is 30+ carriers, 3+ motherships, and occasionally 2 or 3 Titans. If this is the reason why they wanna change the carriers/moms then y not change the amount a fleet can contains these? For exapmle for every wing can have 1-3 capitals, and for it need at least 5 ppl per each capital, then every fleet can have 1-3 supercaps max. So that way need some support and need several fleet to can achive the 30+ carrier and some supercaps. This will cause some blob, but solve this issue and not need any changes in the carrier/moms which are good they ways now, just used them too many ppl now.
The Acolyte	Posted - 2007.10.25 11:49:00 - [616] Fix the lag and make my grid load faster! Don't nerf my carrier! Spend your time where it needs to be, to improve the game functionality!
Kerfira	Posted - 2007.10.25 11:55:00 - [617] Originally by: eL'eM For exapmle for every wing can have 1-3 capitals, and for it need at least 5 ppl per each capital, then every fleet can have 1-3 supercaps max. So that way need some support and need several fleet to can achive the 30+ carrier and some supercaps. "And in flies the Alts!" Any solution to any problem in EVE that requires restrictions in relation to numbers in fleet, gang, alliance, corp etc. are impossible to implement so people can't get around them with alts (alt characters, alt corp, alt alliances etc.). 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.
Manfred Doomhammer Caldari ShadowTec Inc. Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.25 12:07:00 - [618] Seriously, people, calm down! The behaviour of some in here is childish and really a disgrace. It clearly would help if people actually read the blog this thread is commenting on, there is a high lvl of posts in here that still refer to the first carrier nerf blog wich was not anywhere near the quality of the new blog. It would help if people started to act constructively, instead of *****ing about points that were made in the old blog wich no longer are discussed anyways. Also, like some have done, to tell the devs to stop posting is NOT the way to go about this, be happy that they actually wade through this cesspool of a thread, i sure as hell know i wouldnt. For those that still havent got it, NO, they are no longer talking about reducing the controlable fightercount to 5 and forcing you to have a wingman for the rest automatically, but right now , they are proposing a change to carriers allowing for specialising these ships through the use of modules. Details have to yet be fleshed out, but the general direction this is taking sounds a lot more promising. so please, could all take a break, stop the angst posting and come forth with constructive ideas that are ON TOPIC?! ---- CEO ShadowTec Inc. Curatores Veritatis Alliance
dr shark Minmatar Destructive Influence Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.10.25 12:10:00 - [619] Originally by: CCP Nozh Increase teamplay and make the low skillpoint, non-capital pilots more valuable in fleet combat Since when you deleted this feature btw? I remembering when i was bit less then 4m SP doing my first PvP stuff as a tacler (ceptor-not t1 frig). Is 4m that much? You need less then that, even when chars starts with 800k SP? Dont we already have shuttles and ibises involved in fleet fights? They have their role as i heard from those that use them. So, as i understude, you need low SP pilots in pods to be efficiant part of combat as well? Good
Dazenil Caldari The Edge Foundation Zenith Affinity	Posted - 2007.10.25 12:10:00 - [620] From my point of view This solves Nothing, Carrier as All Capitals (that You need BS 5 For) Need to Be On the BattleField Poping whatever comes into lock with Any Weapon at hand. I wasn't training for almost two years and spending Bil's over bils on skill books - And soon the ship and moduals too - to Be A logistic\Friendly pilot that anybody can pop - If i wanted that I would trained For A Freighter And houl things in empire. Now when im On the doorstep to pilot a Carrier - you nurf it to be a Support ship... almost 2 years Going to waist here!!! And I dont Want your Balance thing - I dont want to fly your small frigs and cruisers - I dont care - there are others who like it, I dont. I want 15\25 Fighters - and I want To pop Things! Dont let Us Carrier Pilots (and future carrier pilots) Down!!! Reconsider Your moves before its too late, Dazenil. ---------------------------------------------

zoolkhan Minmatar Freelance Unincorporated Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2007.10.25 12:13:00 - [621] Edited by: zoolkhan on 25/10/2007 12:14:02 Originally by: CCP kieron Carriers, the Swiss Army Knife of EVE??? Kieron. Did you ever own a swiss army knife? The blade is short, and makes the opponent laugh. The saw is just a toy, and seriously i would rather choose a big real mens saw. The analogy is fitting though - the carrier is "just" the swiss army knife capable to fulfill many roles - but none a good as the specialist. Its the "swiss army" knife - because other armies prefer the real thing.
infinityshok	Posted - 2007.10.25 12:18:00 - [622] Originally by: Manfred Doomhammer It clearly would help if people actually read the blog this thread is commenting on, there is a high lvl of posts in here that still refer to the first carrier nerf blog wich was not anywhere near the quality of the new blog. Direct quote from the blog of CCP Nozh: 'So Iæm not nerfed today but in 3 months instead? Yes...'
Lazuran Gallente Time And ISK Sink Corporation	Posted - 2007.10.25 12:22:00 - [623] Originally by: Manfred Doomhammer ... stuff ... Actually this thread is more of a PITA to read because of rubbish meta-posts such as these. Sorry bud, but most of the "childish" posts at least address some real concerns, such as the fact that CCP has simply not posted any real reason for doing this nerf, other than "we think the carrier is a master of all trades", which to any carrier pilot (who spends 95% of his time in other ships like most), is simply brown organic matter. "...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)
Kerfira	Posted - 2007.10.25 12:32:00 - [624] Edited by: Kerfira on 25/10/2007 12:32:05 A reason why a lot of people are using carriers instead of battleships in fights is probably this: They die less to lag! When in lag-hell, if you're in a battleship and someone (cruiser or above) starts shooting you, you'll not be able to warp out, start your reppers etc. before you're dead. In a carrier you'll probably survive as you got the tank depth to last. In a lag-less environment, battleships are way more flexible than carriers. Fix blobbing, fix lag (I know it's easier said than done, but fixing blobbing would be fairly simple...), and a lot of 'balancing' will not be needed. 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.
Kublai Khan Caldari TAOSP Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.10.25 12:42:00 - [625] For those who want to discuss the way Interdictors play into this, I made a thread in the Ideas forum: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=621529&page=1
James Duar Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.10.25 12:48:00 - [626] Originally by: Kerfira Edited by: Kerfira on 25/10/2007 12:32:05 A reason why a lot of people are using carriers instead of battleships in fights is probably this: They die less to lag! When in lag-hell, if you're in a battleship and someone (cruiser or above) starts shooting you, you'll not be able to warp out, start your reppers etc. before you're dead. In a carrier you'll probably survive as you got the tank depth to last. In a lag-less environment, battleships are way more flexible than carriers. Fix blobbing, fix lag (I know it's easier said than done, but fixing blobbing would be fairly simple...), and a lot of 'balancing' will not be needed. Quotin' 'dis. No one knows how carriers are actually performing in fleets, all we know is they're the only ship with a chance of doing something - anything - in crippling lag.
John McCreedy Caldari Eve Defence Force	Posted - 2007.10.25 12:48:00 - [627] Forgive me if this question has been asked but what exactly is so wrong with a Carrier being a "Jack of all trades"? Bear in mind the full phrase is "Jack of all trades, Master of none". That's the key part here, yes it can fufil a multitude of roles simultaneously but none of them to a degree that another ship cannot do better. A Jump-capable Freighter will haul more stuff when it's released. A Dread will pump out more DPS as well as having a superior tank. A Logistics Cruiser has a faster lock time and is more expendable for remote repping. So again, I ask you CCP, given that a Carrier does not excel in the multiple roles it fufils, what's so bad about it being a "jack of all trades"? Make a Difference
Hyron Nazcan Technologies Dread Sovereign	Posted - 2007.10.25 12:48:00 - [628] Guys - CCP ARE STILL NERFING THE CARRIER They have said nothing about removing their stupid ***** 5 drone limit. What the am I gonna do with 5 fighters CCP? If I get attacked by a small gang I am useless**. 'we wanted to limit the amount of fighters a carrier or mothership could field solo' You have said nothing about removing this, infact this bit emphasises it's still going to happen - 'A standard Carrier pilot (10 fighters) will need at least one "wingman" to field all his fighters.' 'You can be all you can be, just not all at the same time.' Basically, we need to fit additional mods to make us just as good as we were before.
Dazenil Caldari The Edge Foundation Zenith Affinity	Posted - 2007.10.25 12:52:00 - [629] Edited by: Dazenil on 25/10/2007 12:54:02 Originally by: John McCreedy Forgive me if this question has been asked but what exactly is so wrong with a Carrier being a "Jack of all trades"? Bear in mind the full phrase is "Jack of all trades, Master of none". That's the key part here, yes it can fufil a multitude of roles simultaneously but none of them to a degree that another ship cannot do better. A Jump-capable Freighter will haul more stuff when it's released. A Dread will pump out more DPS as well as having a superior tank. A Logistics Cruiser has a faster lock time and is more expendable for remote repping. So again, I ask you CCP, given that a Carrier does not excel in the multiple roles it fufils, what's so bad about it being a "jack of all trades"? Compleatly Correct - But I dont think CCp Will actualy Hear Any of Us - I Fear Of the worse In This Case. They will stick to theyr own opinion and probebly make a mistake =\ Edit - The only thing that carrier has Is the Number of Drones - And guess what - NO MORE - "HA HA HA " >_< ---------------------------------------------
Vanessa Vale	Posted - 2007.10.25 12:57:00 - [630] CCP's way of trying to introduce this and has been appalling. The "I'm sorry [but you are fked]" doesn't help either. However I'm one of those who would welcome some kind of dramatic change to carriers so that at least deployment on an engagement isn't instantaneous. I'm sure there are more of us.



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 36 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.

What does this have to do with Carriers

To get to and end here