EVE Search - Carrier Nerf quietly re-introduced

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Carrier Nerf quietly re-introduced

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Viqer Fell Minmatar Trinity Nova KIA Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.27 11:42:00 - [1] Edited by: Viqer Fell on 27/10/2007 11:45:41 http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=622267 Pretty much says it all. Ships inside a carriers ship maintenance bay can no longer have cargo in them. It has not been mentioned in a dev blog, and I am assuming most people won't have heard about this as it has been originally posted on the development forum but this change is live on SiSi and with only 2-3 weeks before Rev II hits it's a pretty major change to carriers but with no notice. Click here to visit our site
Theodox Gotan No Trademark Notoriety Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.27 11:59:00 - [2] So basically, the fighter nerf is on hold until next patch and now they want to take away the carriers logistic capabilities? I think if they increased the corporate hanger to say 20-30k m3 that would work nicely, however to change a ship that we have to spend nearly a year to train for and fly properly more than 2 years after its introduction to eve, is very wrong in so many ways. Half of the carrier pilots out there trained for it just for the logistical ability, maybe instead of ****ing off the community on a daily basis they could introduce some type of module that a carrier had to fit in order to excell at logistics? As a carrier pilot this is upsetting, however the increased ship maintnaince bay is a nice addition.
Fswd	Posted - 2007.10.27 12:03:00 - [3] There are freighters for hauling stuff. The function of carriers is to carry fighters, not ships. ---
Viqer Fell Minmatar Trinity Nova KIA Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.27 12:04:00 - [4] Indeed I think this change would have to be balanced by a large boost to the carriers corp hangar array capacity in order to allow you to carry people's mods and ammo and spare fuel etc in the carrier bay. Still this means mixing everyones gear up together which is yet another logistical nightmare waiting to happen. Click here to visit our site
Ather Ialeas Amarr Exercitus Solus	Posted - 2007.10.27 12:09:00 - [5] It's just CCP's way of creating demand for otherwise rather useless/not cost effective ship class, namely the T2 freighters. -
Theodox Gotan No Trademark Notoriety Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.27 12:09:00 - [6] Originally by: Fswd There are freighters for hauling stuff. The function of carriers is to carry fighters, not ships. Says the alt of someone who probably cannot fly carriers in the first place. If they would have brought it up in a dev blog we could have discussed it with them, but they went behind our backs in an attempt to sneak it in there without anyone noticing. The fact is, there are thousands of carrier pilots that trained to use the carrier like it is now, and with them making changes like this without even asking for feedback is very disappointing. I personally do not have much of a problem with the change as I dont fuel many pos's . but the corporate hanger could do with a little boost.
Viqer Fell Minmatar Trinity Nova KIA Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.27 12:15:00 - [7] Edited by: Viqer Fell on 27/10/2007 12:15:57 Originally by: Fswd There are freighters for hauling stuff. The function of carriers is to carry fighters, not ships. That is simply not true. If it was then carriers would never have been given the capacity to carry ships at all. Half the problem here is that the issue of carrier changes at the moment is very sensitive to the community (100 odd pages of comments on the prev thread proves this) and as such surely changes should be discussed openly beforehand and not just introduced (albeit yes i know onto a test server). Surely even a post from zulu to suggest that this is what he thinks may work and why and communicate on this issue so we can give constructive feedback. There have been countless suggestions on how the carriers can be "nerfed" in a manner that is acceptable to the community and I dont think many people would mind if they were nerfed a little but buffed in other areas to balance them out. As it is at the moment carriers are hugely more vulnerable than many people seem to think (moms a diff story) and in respect of your sig it's not an e-peen its just a ship i happen to like to fly and dont get that much chance to use. I don't ever recall suggesting I was better than anyone just because i own the ship nor that it makes me superior because i happen to fly it. I thought the whole childish obsession with "e-peen" was that people were thinking they were bigger / better / smarter simply cause they had one much like sports cars are ego-boosters for some people irl? And another thing, simply saying there are freghters for hauling is a flawed argument in and of itself. Yes Freighters and soon jump freighters are for hauling large volumes. That is not denied, carriers never could haul larger volumes in that sense. Carriers hauling capacity is far far smaller than a freighter. So thats like saying a probe is not for hauling as thats what a tempest is for. Two different ship classes mate with two different jobs. Click here to visit our site
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2007.10.27 12:24:00 - [8] Or, could it possibly be that CCP wants alliances to SHRINK their territory to sizes they can actually and effectvely control, occupy and police ? You know, leave space for more "new" players out in 0.0 ? _ 1\|2\|3
Wild Rho Amarr GoonFleet	Posted - 2007.10.27 12:26:00 - [9] People are going to cry foul at any change to the carrier anyway. He probably doesn't request constructive feedback because he won't actually get it. What he'll get is generally a load of ranting about players who are annoyed their favourite toy isn't as uber as it once was.
shupaco yaloo	Posted - 2007.10.27 12:32:00 - [10] oh right so its unfair that your ship cant do everything from hauling to pvp to gang support from a distance without ever changing its fit
Lazuran Gallente Time And ISK Sink Corporation	Posted - 2007.10.27 12:33:00 - [11] Originally by: Theodox Gotan So basically, the fighter nerf is on hold until next patch and now they want to take away the carriers logistic capabilities? It is obvious now after all that was said and done that CCP doesn't have a problem with the Carrier's capabilities per se(), but with the widespread use of Carriers. They simply want to make Carriers unattractive* to reduce their use as the natural upgrade from Battleships. Therefore it's naive to expect them to simply make them more specialized or tweak them here and there. Carriers and Motherships will be less attractive to everyone. () simple reasoning: they've been in the game for years, they were buffed, they BBQ'd BS, noone had any problems with that. Only now that many people buy/train for them after being "done" with Battleships, CCP sees a "problem". "...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)*
Deanna Nuchi	Posted - 2007.10.27 12:39:00 - [12] No cargo = no ammo in the ships.. Its an Amarr boost!!!
Leonidas Rex Amarr FM Corp Insomnia.	Posted - 2007.10.27 12:49:00 - [13] Im tired of seeing everyone and their mother flying a carrier, so \o/ for nerfing the carrier :) And I know you all agree, you just haven't realised it yet.
Schani Kratnorr Internal Revenue Service	Posted - 2007.10.27 12:50:00 - [14] Originally by: Fswd There are freighters for hauling stuff. The function of carriers is to carry fighters, not stuff. In some way, this can even be regarded as an exploit, like how miners use jet-cans. You are 100% off the mark there... First off an assembled ship cannot be put in a frieghter. Now then you may remark "then repack it", but ahhh, that's not entirely useful when there are rigs on the ship now is it! The whole point of being able to have stuff like ammo/missiles in your ships cargo, is to be able to reload. I can understand CCP would want to take away the ability to use 1 or 2 industrial ships as "cargo expanders", but then again, is that REALLY such a HUGE problem??? Arent there abnout a thousand more pressing issues to fix first? You must not have been in a situation where you ever had to opportunity to board a ship from a carrier, because if you had, then you would realize just how utterly useless it is to have to bring ammo from the corp. hangars AFTER boarding the ship. The load-times alone make me sick to my stomack, and even asuming they could somehow fix that, it would still be counter-intuitive NOT to be able to put stuff in the cargo bays of ships effectively "docked". From a technical standpoint, I can understand the whole container-inside-container-issue, but as a player I really dont care. To me, it's just CCP whining when they start talking about "the problems ascossiated with this..." I DONT CARE. If capital ships are broke at a fundemental level, then say so. Give us back the $ we paid while training the skills. Give us back the ISK we spent buying the skills, and give us back the ISK spent on the ships themselves. Then delete them from the game and start over... The ONLY other option is to fix them on the fly and LISTEN to those who actually use the ships. IF there are 10.000 carriers in game, then it's only a small percentage you're catering to. The organized superblob-people of 0.0 space can afford to move on the whatever ship/fitting becomes the "best" when you nerf one thing, but for mere mortals, the multi-bn-isk blow will be hard-felt. We might have to organize a 10.000-man march on carefully chosen systems in order to protest the seemingly indescriminate nerf-bat swinging. How would all you non-carrier-owning players like it if 10.000 people (many with more than one account) started "marching" on your favorite mission-running systems, tradehubs, and highway systems? If just 5% showed up, that could easily make the game unplayable. (yes a DO realize such a social protest could constitute a breach of the EULA, but It might happen anyway).
Leonidas Rex Amarr FM Corp Insomnia.	Posted - 2007.10.27 12:54:00 - [15] Edited by: Leonidas Rex on 27/10/2007 12:54:27 Originally by: Schani Kratnorr The ONLY other option is to fix them on the fly and LISTEN to those who actually use the ships. The worst thing the devs can do is to listen to whiners, they are nothing but a vocal minority, and listening to those people will in the end only cater to unbalancing the game further, the devs know what they are doing. So please Devs, dont worry about the loud whining minority here, most of the EvE pop is happy :)
madaluap Gallente Mercenary Forces Exquisite Malevolence	Posted - 2007.10.27 13:09:00 - [16] Why not change the size of haulers? Just make em very big, thats it. This way people cannot use haulers inside their carrier and move large quantities. Why make changes that will only make things difficult and complicated and useless. C'mon this is crap, there are far better solutions. _________________________________________________ Breetime A killmail!11!1 omgrawr: BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
SN3263827 The Black Rabbits The Gurlstas Associates	Posted - 2007.10.27 13:19:00 - [17] Originally by: Theodox Gotan to change a ship that we have to spend nearly a year to train for and fly properly Please list the skills that have no use except for carriers. When you've done that, add up the training time. You'll fall well short of a year. _____________________________________________ My Wishlist
Davlos Caldari Veto. Veto Corp	Posted - 2007.10.27 13:21:00 - [18] Once upon a time, in a galaxy far far away.... there was a game. There was a game that was awesome at first, then it got stupidly f**ked sideways by the devs because they chose to listen to all the whiners who wanted their game to be more like Counter-Strike. Then it died. It was Star Wars Galaxies. 'Users of carriers' who post here, aka whiners ought to be slapped with the Order of Stalin's Silence for their own good. ---------------
MEEATYOU Gallente Coalition of Nations Free Trade Zone.	Posted - 2007.10.27 13:24:00 - [19] Another carrier nerf? Jesus, read like 5 of them in 5 min. What are you doing CCP? Carebears belong in empire. Warriors belong in low sec and 0.0 Stop nerfing **** already
Leonidas Rex Amarr FM Corp Insomnia.	Posted - 2007.10.27 13:28:00 - [20] Edited by: Leonidas Rex on 27/10/2007 13:28:50 Originally by: Davlos Once upon a time, in a galaxy far far away.... there was a game. There was a game that was awesome at first, then it got stupidly f**ked sideways by the devs because they chose to listen to all the whiners who wanted their game to be more like Counter-Strike. Then it died. It was Star Wars Galaxies. 'Users of carriers' who post here, aka whiners ought to be slapped with the Order of Stalin's Silence for their own good. I was there, I saw it with my own eyes... the sorrow.. many good bothans died (and a few troopers). But it was sad, truly sad.. it was the greatest but became the worst.. a tribute to how not to run a game... One silent minute for SWG Oh well..
ArmyOfMe hirr Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.10.27 13:28:00 - [21] this is one nerf that dont bother me much since we are getting new freighters as well. taking away a few roles from the carriers to make them better in other areas doesnt sound to bad imo
Rawthorm Gallente The Establishment Establishment	Posted - 2007.10.27 13:38:00 - [22] Originally by: ArmyOfMe this is one nerf that dont bother me much since we are getting new freighters as well. taking away a few roles from the carriers to make them better in other areas doesnt sound to bad imo Until a dreadnought force of yours needs ammo and stront taken with it on an offensive and you have to manualy pilot a dozen haulers down to the war zone :p
Phantom Slave Amarr Mozzaki United	Posted - 2007.10.27 13:40:00 - [23] This change is on SISI. A TEST server. Why not wait until a Dev replies to either this thread, or the thread in the Game Dev section, or even until it goes LIVE before complaining about something that at this point in time has NO EFFECT on you what so ever? You said it yourself, it's NOT in the Dev Blogs. Could it possibly be a glitch? Maybe? Or maybe they haven't finished coding the new carrier information in (this would include Bandwidth)? (Walks off mumbling to himself nonsensically) ____________________ Pirating in EVE is like kicking a squirrel and stealing his food. The squirrel hates you afterwards, but it's fun none the less.
Druadan Gallente Aristotle Enterprises Ethereal Dawn	Posted - 2007.10.27 13:44:00 - [24] Bloody ridiculous change. Conceptually, it's worse than the fighter nerf. Realistically, it's just as bad. Dev attention to the thread linked in the OP. Needed. Now.
Fswd	Posted - 2007.10.27 14:00:00 - [25] Originally by: Theodox Gotan Originally by: Fswd There are freighters for hauling stuff. The function of carriers is to carry fighters, not ships. Says the alt of someone who probably cannot fly carriers in the first place. If they would have brought it up in a dev blog we could have discussed it with them, but they went behind our backs in an attempt to sneak it in there without anyone noticing. The fact is, there are thousands of carrier pilots that trained to use the carrier like it is now, and with them making changes like this without even asking for feedback is very disappointing. I personally do not have much of a problem with the change as I dont fuel many pos's . but the corporate hanger could do with a little boost. Lol how not wanting to put corp in your name immediately labels you as alt. ---
Fswd	Posted - 2007.10.27 14:04:00 - [26] Originally by: MEEATYOU Another carrier nerf? Jesus, read like 5 of them in 5 min. What are you doing CCP? Carebears belong in empire. Warriors belong in low sec and 0.0 Stop nerfing **** already Thats what they are doing by removing the carrier attractiveness. So go back to empire, carebear ---
Sky Marshal Aeden Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2007.10.27 14:05:00 - [27] Originally by: Phantom Slave This change is on SISI. A TEST server. Hum... Habitually, when something is created on SiSi, it will be exported in TQ fastly. No Dev Blogs are necessary to introduce changes. I don't remember read something about the Rook who have 1 more Low Slot at the cost of 1 High Slot on SiSi (not really a bad thing btw), or the "Mineral Compression" (no-)problem who will make farming definitively less efficient (effective since two weeks on SiSi). Wait that it is really effective to complain is the worse thing to do, but too much complains is also bad, but since we are in the nerfing season, I think it is necessary...
Druadan Gallente Aristotle Enterprises Ethereal Dawn	Posted - 2007.10.27 14:06:00 - [28] Let's not forget the last carrier logistics nerf, when they stopped us using GSCs in the holds of our ships in the carrier ship bay. They snuck that through to the test server, hoping we wouldn't notice, and then ignored all the outcry it caused. They didn't even bother to stonewall us... they just ignored us. If it's on EIB, it's up for discussion. If it's not, and we have to make our own thread in Game Development, we're screwed. That's the way it is, and it's not acceptable.
Daelin Blackleaf Aliastra	Posted - 2007.10.27 14:11:00 - [29] Originally by: madaluap Why not change the size of haulers? Just make em very big, thats it. This way people cannot use haulers inside their carrier and move large quantities. I agree with the nerf, but this is a far more sensible suggestion.
Race Rogers Minmatar Republic University	Posted - 2007.10.27 14:16:00 - [30] bring an ammo ship. flame all you want but this newbie thinks it is a good idea. you cannot fight a war without a logistic supply line and supplies. if the carrier is able to have ammo in it's cargo hold and able to dispense ammo once the ships are out, then all the better. a freight ship to resupply the carrier. i have yet to fight out in the real world [only 6 days old] but anything that makes it more strategic/tactical is a good thing. i want every ship to have a purpose in battle. is this such a crazy thing to want? is it only one percent of the player base that post on these boards? if it is only one percent, then ninety eight percent seem to cry all the time? those who cry and do not adapt should just quit. there is no love here for non progressive thought. flame on!

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: 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.