EVE Search - Carrier Nerf quietly re-introduced

Check My IP Information

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!

NoNah Unseen University	Posted - 2007.10.27 14:38:00 - [31] Yay \o/ Postcount: 567434 [02:40:22] <elmickers> if you're caldari in a fleet fight, bring a corp
HandSoLow	Posted - 2007.10.27 15:36:00 - [32] A bit of a noob question... ...If bought a Carrier and CCP nerfed carriers, would my ship disappear in my hanger? Would I be refunded my ISK or would I be one of the few who have a carrier left in EVE?
Herculite Black Eclipse Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.10.27 15:49:00 - [33] Originally by: Fswd Edited by: Fswd on 27/10/2007 12:08:10 Edited by: Fswd on 27/10/2007 12:07:56 Edited by: Fswd on 27/10/2007 12:07:23 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. It took you 3 edits to come up with this gem alt?
Cailais Amarr VITOC Fang Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.27 16:06:00 - [34] iirc in the last Dev Blog on the subject of carriers ccp said they would be looking at modules that allow you to fit your carrier for a specific role - be that as cargo carrier, defense, offense and so on. As this change is on sisi (along with a lot of other changes) how about we all stop peering into the 'magic crystal ball' and churning out hysterical wines on the forums? C. - sig designer - eve mail Low Sec Idea
Darius Fox	Posted - 2007.10.27 16:12:00 - [35] Originally by: Davlos 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. Wrong. SWG died because the Devs nerfed things for the fun of it, until the game became a huge nerf circle jerk (nerf BH then Jedi, rinse, repeat). Finally the game became so screwed they nerfed everything with little notice or consultation with the playerbase. Everyone left. Then the game died. I left and came here because of the minimal nerfage by devs. However REV III is making me wonder whether CCP have morphed into SOE
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2007.10.27 16:18:00 - [36] Originally by: Viqer Fell 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. I will not enter on the value of the change, but to have missed it people should have blind like just born kittens or don't read the forum (an so they will not see this post too). Yesterday there was a guy that started at least 5 thread about this change, all with the same name and within minutes from each other, in this forum. While comments on the change are needed, starting threadnaughts on it aren't a good idea.
Loyal Servant Caldari Viper Intel Squad Pure.	Posted - 2007.10.27 16:20:00 - [37] Every day a new nerf. Nerf ISK FARMERS FFS. Carriers are not gankmobiles as it is, and they really cannot carry all that much since the cans in haulers nerf anyhow. I foresee the end of the carrier over this nonsense.
Oniko Sengir Coreli Corporation	Posted - 2007.10.27 16:20:00 - [38] 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'd just like to point out that with SWG it was the 'silent majority' that the changes were trying to cater to. "The ôsilent majorityö never materializes, and your current base is alienated due to changes that they did not want." Taken from the article on here: at mmorpg.com
Karlemgne The Black Fleet	Posted - 2007.10.27 16:24:00 - [39] Omg, again with the crocodile tears. I'm sorry but I don't really feel that sorry for you and your solo pown mobiles. First and foremost the number of people flying capitals is out of control. If it were up to me, I'd banish ALL of you capital pilots to 0.0. Yeah, that's right, every capital ship would HAVE to stay in 0.0. It would also end your favorite exploit--using carriers as uber haulers. exploit is defined as any game mechanic that allows players to do something not intended by the designers. Personally, I think its great that they are finally going through with the nerf to your 0.0 alliances use of combat ships and expensive haulers. If only they hadn't introduced the Roquel and they weren't about to go live with a jump freighter then it would have really stopped you 0.0 alliances from removing most of the risk involved in traveling to your space. Which reminds me, why the frack are you complaining again? Carriers aren't supposed to be giant transport ships, however since you guys complain every time CCP thought about changing it, CCP is giving you dedicated jumping haulers... And you still complain. -Karl
Druadan Gallente Aristotle Enterprises Ethereal Dawn	Posted - 2007.10.27 16:27:00 - [40] Edited by: Druadan on 27/10/2007 16:28:10 Originally by: Karlemgne Omg, again with the crocodile tears. I'm sorry but I don't really feel that sorry for you and your solo pown mobiles. First and foremost the number of people flying capitals is out of control. If it were up to me, I'd banish ALL of you capital pilots to 0.0. Yeah, that's right, every capital ship would HAVE to stay in 0.0. It would also end your favorite exploit--using carriers as uber haulers. exploit is defined as any game mechanic that allows players to do something not intended by the designers. Personally, I think its great that they are finally going through with the nerf to your 0.0 alliances use of combat ships and expensive haulers. If only they hadn't introduced the Roquel and they weren't about to go live with a jump freighter then it would have really stopped you 0.0 alliances from removing most of the risk involved in traveling to your space. Which reminds me, why the frack are you complaining again? Carriers aren't supposed to be giant transport ships, however since you guys complain every time CCP thought about changing it, CCP is giving you dedicated jumping haulers... And you still complain. -Karl Ah you're back. Are you going to talk any sense this time round or is it going to be your one-man, frothing-at-the-mouth tirade against 0.0 logistics like in the Carrier GSC nerf thread?

Karlemgne The Black Fleet	Posted - 2007.10.27 16:28:00 - [41] Originally by: Oniko Sengir 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'd just like to point out that with SWG it was the 'silent majority' that the changes were trying to cater to. "The ôsilent majorityö never materializes, and your current base is alienated due to changes that they did not want." Taken from the article on here: at mmorpg.com I'd like to point out that SWG still has as many players as EVE Online does. I'd also like to point out that the changes to the game probably come from Lucas Arts, but hey. And lasted I'd like to point out that while its true that the number of capital ship pilots is out of control, a vast VAST majority of us don't fly capitals and either: 1. Are happy you are getting nerfed or 2. Don't give a flying f
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2007.10.27 16:33:00 - [42] Edited by: Venkul Mul on 27/10/2007 16:34:07 Quote: 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? For me this is the only valid point against the change. But honestly I will question if it is so often needed to bring out a new ship in a lag situation where you need that the ship had a full ammo load ready. A possible solution could be to add a dedicated ammunition cargo hold in the ships, but it will require extra coding, so I doubt it is a valid solution. About the "more pressing fix" have you ever noticed that when a lot of people are working on the same feature the end result more often than not is broken? There is a size limit in the efficient use of people, adding some extra developer to the same task will not speed it up, more easily will slow it down as they will need to spend a lot of time explaining to all the other guys what they have changed, why and how.
Alski Gallente Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.27 16:42:00 - [43] Since we're double posting anyway, i'm just gonna repost what i said in the other thread: ...the problem is that they are not implementing these changes in the right order, if they want rorquels and jump-freighters to replace the role of carrier logistics then they need to: A) Implicitly state that carrier logistics are going to be “removed” from the game in the future, not just by making changes on sisi, not by a random reply that is short on details in a thread, but by an official dev-blog. B) Implement the replacement for it; ie jump-freighters and the expanded rorquel, and give us PLENTY OF TIME to train to fly them, build them and adapt to the changes C) Then, and ONLY then should the nurfage of carrier logistics take place. Failure to make these changes in this specific order only makes the lives of the people in charge of alliance level logistics extremely difficult and the task itself even more complicated and time consuming. - (combat) Patch belonging to CCP hits your drones, wrecking their liberty and freedom.
Sinder Ohm Infinite Improbability Inc Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2007.10.27 16:42:00 - [44] Originally by: Karlemgne Omg, again with the crocodile tears. I'm sorry but I don't really feel that sorry for you and your solo pown mobiles. First and foremost the number of people flying capitals is out of control. If it were up to me, I'd banish ALL of you capital pilots to 0.0. Yeah, that's right, every capital ship would HAVE to stay in 0.0. It would also end your favorite exploit--using carriers as uber haulers. exploit is defined as any game mechanic that allows players to do something not intended by the designers. Personally, I think its great that they are finally going through with the nerf to your 0.0 alliances use of combat ships and expensive haulers. If only they hadn't introduced the Roquel and they weren't about to go live with a jump freighter then it would have really stopped you 0.0 alliances from removing most of the risk involved in traveling to your space. Which reminds me, why the frack are you complaining again? Carriers aren't supposed to be giant transport ships, however since you guys complain every time CCP thought about changing it, CCP is giving you dedicated jumping haulers... And you still complain. -Karl So is it fun jumping on the flaming bandwagon before the blog from CCP I hardly saw any nerf carrierz / boost carrierz threads. Now people that have no firsthand experience with carriers just jump on these threads argueing with points borrowed from other threads that they dont even personally beleive in.
Sean Dillon Caldari R.U.S.T.	Posted - 2007.10.27 16:46:00 - [45] Edited by: Sean Dillon on 27/10/2007 16:45:53 I think i am gonna cancel my account, i spent the last months training for carriers now this. No you cant have my stuff.
Bonny Lee Caldari God's Army Corp OPUS Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.27 16:50:00 - [46] Better start nerfing carriers and moms as much as you can now CCP. If the part of the playerbase who is able to fly those ships doubles in the future your forum will not be able to handle the huge amount of flame they are going to produce. We will get Jumpfreighters. We dont need Carriers as giant fighting Haulers anymore.
Mikal Zackfelt Gallente THE MISPHIT'S INVICTUS.	Posted - 2007.10.27 16:56:00 - [47] I would like to say that the amount of whining the past few weeks have been astounding... I mean ffs, didnt CCP clearly state that they dont want players using carriers as freighters, jumping stuff in and out 0.0 and empire? This is why the Rorqual and the new jump freighters are coming in the next patch. Maybe I am still a noob who doesnt quite understand 0.0 mechanics, politics, and logistics; but come on, the amount of whining is just outstanding. And almost sickening. P.S. before I get flamed, I would like to state, I understand the timesink that carriers and other cap ships involve; I am currently speccing up for a carrier myself, and I welcome the new changes (although I clearly have a long way to go and much more iskies to accumulate) /me still dons asbestos flame suit just in case...
Druadan Gallente Aristotle Enterprises Ethereal Dawn	Posted - 2007.10.27 17:02:00 - [48] Edited by: Druadan on 27/10/2007 17:04:53 Edited by: Druadan on 27/10/2007 17:04:13 Originally by: Mikal Zackfelt I would like to say that the amount of whining the past few weeks have been astounding... I mean ffs, didnt CCP clearly state that they dont want players using carriers as freighters, jumping stuff in and out 0.0 and empire? This is why the Rorqual and the new jump freighters are coming in the next patch. Maybe I am still a noob who doesnt quite understand 0.0 mechanics, politics, and logistics; but come on, the amount of whining is just outstanding. And almost sickening. P.S. before I get flamed, I would like to state, I understand the timesink that carriers and other cap ships involve; I am currently speccing up for a carrier myself, and I welcome the new changes (although I clearly have a long way to go and much more iskies to accumulate) /me still dons asbestos flame suit just in case... I don't have a problem with the spirit of the nerf, but it's another ridiculously stupid implementation. Logistics carrier pilots don't have freighters trained, or the rorqual stuff trained. So the carrier nerf needs to come in like 6months after the introduction of the jump freighters, so that the logistics guys can retrain. Even that is a really awful way to do it, because it means these logistics guys have a tonne of useless skillpoints. Time wasted on stuff they don't need because CCP decided to reimagine a whole aspect of the game, at the expense of the players who invested time into that area of the game. What is the point of doubling our SMB and halving the size of battleships, if we can't even bring fitted and loaded ships to the battlefield? It's also a redundant nerf, as you could significantly reduce the effectiveness of the SMB using the specialisation idea that's coming in in three months. This change makes me think the specialisation idea isn't even coming, that it was just said to placate us. In other words, Nixon's not bringing the smokes.
Kessiaan	Posted - 2007.10.27 18:18:00 - [49] I don't fly a carrier but I don't get it. If they don't want carriers being used for heavy duty hauling, why remove the ability for ships in the maintenance bay to carry any cargo? What about ammo, alternate mod loadouts, exotic dancers, etc, etc, etc. Maybe a better solution would be to not let carriers put industrial ships and transports in the bay, or at least force these ships (and only these ships) to be empty? ----- My in Eve Profile
Kerfira	Posted - 2007.10.27 18:20:00 - [50] Edited by: Kerfira on 27/10/2007 18:25:21 Your thread will get nerfed too I made a thread pointing out that fact yesterday since many people only read 'General'. Wrangler was quite fast on his 'lock thread' button. Seems like CCP doesn't want the general population (who doesn't read the more specialised forums) to know this.... I can live with a nerf so the carrier ship bay can't contain haulers and barges, but not being able to have combat fitted ships (incl. ammo) in there is a major annoyance. 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.

Redback911 Malevolent Intentions	Posted - 2007.10.27 18:24:00 - [51] I really like being able to carry battleships in carrier, but removing cargo space sucks. Simply put a flag on haulers preventing them being carried. Leave that to the Rorqual.
Rhaegor Stormborn Pestilent Industries Amalgamated	Posted - 2007.10.27 18:29:00 - [52] Originally by: Akita T 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 ? Winner. Rhaegor Stormborn Fleet Admiral - Pestilent Industries Amalgamated [PIA] Recruitment Thread
Hozac	Posted - 2007.10.27 18:35:00 - [53] Carriers have a corp hangar for a reason. Put your ammo in there and remove it when needed.
Alias11 GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.10.27 18:35:00 - [54] You know, if you're going to implement a "replacement" for something, in this case logistics carriers with jump freighters, you should implement the replacement well in advance of removing the original. Bring jump freighters into the game, give people time to get characters skilled to use them, a bunch of them to be invented, and the logistics guys in the new ships, then and only then should you take out the carrier logistics. You don't outlaw cars the same day you implement the super-duper all-inclusive train system. Also how are you supposed to get ships onto the battlefield with anything more than a single clip of ammo? Is this the long-awaited Amarr "oomph"?
Alias11 GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.10.27 18:36:00 - [55] Originally by: Hozac Carriers have a corp hangar for a reason. Put your ammo in there and remove it when needed. You've never actually tried to do this, have you. There is no lag in eve.
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2007.10.27 18:42:00 - [56] Originally by: Alski Since we're double posting anyway, i'm just gonna repost what i said in the other thread: ...the problem is that they are not implementing these changes in the right order, if they want rorquels and jump-freighters to replace the role of carrier logistics then they need to: A) Implicitly state that carrier logistics are going to be ôremovedö from the game in the future, not just by making changes on sisi, not by a random reply that is short on details in a thread, but by an official dev-blog. B) Implement the replacement for it; ie jump-freighters and the expanded rorquel, and give us PLENTY OF TIME to train to fly them, build them and adapt to the changes C) Then, and ONLY then should the nurfage of carrier logistics take place. Failure to make these changes in this specific order only makes the lives of the people in charge of alliance level logistics extremely difficult and the task itself even more complicated and time consuming. Your suggestion would be the logic way to go but then we would see more of this: Originally by: Druadan Logistics carrier pilots don't have freighters trained, or the rorqual stuff trained. So this carrier logistics nerf needs to come in like 6 months after the introduction of the jump freighters, so that the logistics guys can retrain. Even that is a really awful way to do it, because it means these logistics guys have a tonne of useless skillpoints. Time wasted on stuff they don't need because CCP decided to reimagine a whole aspect of the game, at the expense of the players who invested time into that area of the game. What is the point of doubling our SMB and halving the size of battleships, if we can't even bring fitted and loaded ships to the battlefield? It's also a redundant nerf, as you could significantly reduce the effectiveness of the SMB using the specialisation idea that's coming in in three months. This change makes me think the specialisation idea isn't even coming, that it was just said to placate us. In other words, Nixon's not bringing the smokes. with people saying: "I had not enough time to re-train", "We need more time", ecc. as some are doing for the mineral compression change. Probably CCP think that getting a solution in and forcefully putting it up down the player throat in only 1 step will result in less whinage that if they put the new ship in and after some time change the old ships. As in surgery, a clear cut often is better and less painful that several lesser one.
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2007.10.27 18:46:00 - [57] Originally by: Kerfira Edited by: Kerfira on 27/10/2007 18:25:21 Your thread will get nerfed too I made a thread pointing out that fact yesterday since many people only read 'General'. Wrangler was quite fast on his 'lock thread' button. Seems like CCP doesn't want the general population (who doesn't read the more specialised forums) to know this.... I can live with a nerf so the carrier ship bay can't contain haulers and barges, but not being able to have combat fitted ships (incl. ammo) in there is a major annoyance. I think your thread was closed because there was a joker opening several identical threads on this argument, using almost half of the first page of the general forum. As a reaction all the threads about carriers where closed. Not a perfect solution but comprensible.
Alski Gallente Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.27 18:46:00 - [58] Edited by: Alski on 27/10/2007 18:46:42 Originally by: Hozac Carriers have a corp hangar for a reason. Put your ammo in there and remove it when needed. You don't actuley fly a carrier do you? If you did you would know that about 30% of the time when anouther person accesses the corp array on a carrier, it reloads the carrier pilots HUD, that is the hull/armor/shield bars all return to 0% and then reload back to whatever they actuley are, when this happens it breifley lags the carrier pilots client, do this to me in the heat of battle and you'll shortley be needing a replacement pod as well - (combat) Patch belonging to CCP hits your drones, wrecking their liberty and freedom.
Alski Gallente Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.27 18:55:00 - [59] Originally by: Venkul Mul Originally by: Alski Since we're double posting anyway, i'm just gonna repost what i said in the other thread: ...the problem is that they are not implementing these changes in the right order, if they want rorquels and jump-freighters to replace the role of carrier logistics then they need to: A) Implicitly state that carrier logistics are going to be “removed” from the game in the future, not just by making changes on sisi, not by a random reply that is short on details in a thread, but by an official dev-blog. B) Implement the replacement for it; ie jump-freighters and the expanded rorquel, and give us PLENTY OF TIME to train to fly them, build them and adapt to the changes C) Then, and ONLY then should the nurfage of carrier logistics take place. Failure to make these changes in this specific order only makes the lives of the people in charge of alliance level logistics extremely difficult and the task itself even more complicated and time consuming. Your suggestion would be the logic way to go but then we would see more of this: Originally by: Druadan Logistics carrier pilots don't have freighters trained, or the rorqual stuff trained. So this carrier logistics nerf needs to come in like 6 months after the introduction of the jump freighters, so that the logistics guys can retrain. Even that is a really awful way to do it, because it means these logistics guys have a tonne of useless skillpoints. Time wasted on stuff they don't need because CCP decided to reimagine a whole aspect of the game, at the expense of the players who invested time into that area of the game. What is the point of doubling our SMB and halving the size of battleships, if we can't even bring fitted and loaded ships to the battlefield? It's also a redundant nerf, as you could significantly reduce the effectiveness of the SMB using the specialisation idea that's coming in in three months. This change makes me think the specialisation idea isn't even coming, that it was just said to placate us. In other words, Nixon's not bringing the smokes. with people saying: "I had not enough time to re-train", "We need more time", ecc. as some are doing for the mineral compression change. Probably CCP think that getting a solution in and forcefully putting it up down the player throat in only 1 step will result in less whinage that if they put the new ship in and after some time change the old ships. As in surgery, a clear cut often is better and less painful that several lesser one. You and Druadan have a fair point, however it doesn’t change the fact that merely making this change will be hugely detrimental to all 0.0 alliances, it is better that just the carrier pilots whine about being less versatile, than it would be to have every 0.0 alliance pilot whine about how the changes have filtered down to them and effected the way Everyone plays the game. (i'm talking freighter runs and more effot to do pos fueling) Also i think if CCP put out a clear plan telling us it is going to happen before hand and giveing us both the tools (rorquel and jump-freighters) and the time to prepear for it, that would mitigate a lot of the whineing, i for one would be happy with that. Also, if they just left carriers the way they are right now, and then later introduced the proposed changes that will still allow carriers to be refitted to hauling crap, as well as giveing them some other perks in the form of other mode of tasking (the refitting thing) that would placate much of the objections to the change. - (combat) Patch belonging to CCP hits your drones, wrecking their liberty and freedom.
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2007.10.27 18:58:00 - [60] Edited by: Le Skunk on 27/10/2007 18:59:10 Originally by: HandSoLow A bit of a noob question... ...If bought a Carrier and CCP nerfed carriers, would my ship disappear in my hanger? Would I be refunded my ISK or would I be one of the few who have a carrier left in EVE? No - CCP change your carrier into the m3 cargo bay/hanger sized amount of trade goods (cattle/tobacco/etc). SKUNK EDIT - Not really the nerfing refers to a percieved reduction in its capabilities - not an actual removal of the ship.

Druadan Gallente Aristotle Enterprises Ethereal Dawn	Posted - 2007.10.27 20:38:00 - [61] Back to the first page.
Atius Tirawa Minmatar Wreckless Abandon Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.10.27 20:50:00 - [62] 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. Words of e-wisdom here. . .I am feeling that pull in eve. More vegas, concorde and carriers. . .just killing the game. -----------
SiJira	Posted - 2007.10.27 21:27:00 - [63] Originally by: Mikal Zackfelt I would like to say that the amount of whining the past few weeks have been astounding... I mean ffs, didnt CCP clearly state that they dont want players using carriers as freighters, jumping stuff in and out 0.0 and empire? This is why the Rorqual and the new jump freighters are coming in the next patch. Maybe I am still a noob who doesnt quite understand 0.0 mechanics, politics, and logistics; but come on, the amount of whining is just outstanding. And almost sickening. P.S. before I get flamed, I would like to state, I understand the timesink that carriers and other cap ships involve; I am currently speccing up for a carrier myself, and I welcome the new changes (although I clearly have a long way to go and much more iskies to accumulate) /me still dons asbestos flame suit just in case... rorqual blueprint has been released a while ago and there have been rorquals flying around eve since about 40 days ago Originally by: Druadan I don't have a problem with the spirit of the nerf, but it's another ridiculously stupid implementation. Logistics carrier pilots don't have freighters trained, or the rorqual stuff trained. So this carrier logistics nerf needs to come in like 6months after the introduction of the jump freighters, so that the logistics guys can retrain. Even that is a really awful way to do it, because it means these logistics guys have a tonne of useless skillpoints. Time wasted on stuff they don't need because CCP decided to reimagine a whole aspect of the game, at the expense of the players who invested time into that area of the game. What is the point of doubling our SMB and halving the size of battleships, if we can't even bring fitted and loaded ships to the battlefield? It's also a redundant nerf, as you could significantly reduce the effectiveness of the SMB using the specialisation idea that's coming in in three months. This change makes me think the specialisation idea isn't even coming, that it was just said to placate us. In other words, Nixon's not bringing the smokes. if you trained carriers just to be able to use them as glorified haulers then you already fail eve go cry somewhere else ____ __ ________ _sig below_ devs and gms cant modify my sig if they tried! _lies above_ CCP Morpheus was here Morpheus Fails. You need colors!! -Kaemonn [yellow]Kaem
Kerfira	Posted - 2007.10.27 21:57:00 - [64] I posted this in another thread, but I think it deserves repeating..... Quote: CCP! Please take a step back from the nerf-bat, and provide us with this: 1. Outline your vision for how it's supposed to be to live in 0.0. 2. Outline your vision for how it's supposed to be to live in low-sec. 3. Outline your vision for how it's supposed to be to live in high-sec. 4. Outline your vision for how battles are supposed to be. 5. Get a discussion with the community how to achieve this. 6. Modify your vision with the good points raised in the discussion. 7. Outline your plan for how you want to get to that point. 8. Discuss this with the community. 9. Adjust your plan with the good points raised in the discussion. 10. Implement! All these individual random-looking nerfs/changes that you continuously spring on people doesn't go down well, since we don't know what your vision is! It makes your changes seem random and makes it look like you have no clue to how people actually play the game and uses its features. CCP most likely (I hope) has a plan with what they're doing, but if we don't KNOW that plan and the vision behind it, it's pretty damn hard to help them get it right, not to mention hard to understand their actions... 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.
14882	Posted - 2007.10.27 22:07:00 - [65] The only reason people use carriers more than freighters for moving cargo is because CCP hasn't solved the logonski/logoffski tactic. Early-Mid '06 the use of freighters disappeared for any 0.0 alliance not living on the border out of fear that 100 people would log on at your position when your freighter jumped through a gate. How about preventing these ridiculous and exploitative tactics and giving freighters back their role instead of nerfing carriers and all the people who spent months training for them?
Secretary Bargain consumables	Posted - 2007.10.27 22:15:00 - [66] Quote: stuff. This is a democracy! we demand representation. there must be a committee! Yes i fly a carrier, no i really don't care about the changes that are being tested on sisi. The ship is not a pwnmobile, it's not a great logistics tool, it's an albatros. If you tie it round your neck, it'll slow you down. As for ccp having a plan... ahah. The carrier nerf theme arose because it turns out lots of people want them, lots of people wanting them must mean they're unbalanced in some regard. The same could be said of isk, faction modules and outposts but carriers apparently don't enjoy the same attrition rate as isk, faction mods and outposts so The Nerfbat Must Swing. The game is a cruel and heartless ***. You like cruel and heartless *es or you wouldn't play. You knew she would turn on you, you knew the happy times couldn't last but you still delude yourself that your happiness is important to the ***. Play or fold, ccp will do what they want. --------------------------- The signature. Here i can type my Bio.
ReaperOfSly Gallente Lyrus Associates M. PIRE	Posted - 2007.10.27 23:03:00 - [67] Read the latest devblog. It says to ignore the state of things on SiSi, those changes were put there by accident, and will be changed back shortly. Don't Panic. --------------------------------------------------------------------
Druadan Gallente Aristotle Enterprises Ethereal Dawn	Posted - 2007.10.28 01:28:00 - [68] Originally by: ReaperOfSly Read the latest devblog. It says to ignore the state of things on SiSi, those changes were put there by accident, and will be changed back shortly. Don't Panic. No, it's referring to the fact that we all flipped out over the five fighters thing being on SiSi. Screw you, Jacques.
Vitrael Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2007.10.28 01:40:00 - [69] CCP: Here are carriers. They are good at everything. Players: The carrier is good at EVERYTHING! CCP: Well, that was a bad idea, let's make the carriers not good at something. Players: NO OMG WTF. Carriers are being nerfed in a logistical aspect and in turn we are getting jump freighters. Nothing to cry about. You carrier owners won't be Eve's #1 POS *****es anymore. ___________ I learned to accept ship changes months ago. Suddenly I enjoy Eve. You should try it some time.
Imperator Jora'h	Posted - 2007.10.28 02:09:00 - [70] This is amazing. Whining that your carriers cannot double as freighters. Brilliant. We all know CCP wants to nerf the effect of mineral compression. With mineral compression and a carrier toting around ships they had a capacity FAR greater than freighters (and before you flame me a Dev admitted there was a way to get a frigate to double the capacity of a freighter via mineral compression). I do not know if CCP stopped that little trick but surely you can see that is bogus. A carrier has a 3300 m3 cargo hold and carriers were sidestepping this by a large amount using ships in their hangars to carry cargo too. That is unbalancing. As for people being "logistics" carrier pilots well...if that is why you got a carrier you have other problems. Leave logistics to your logisitcs folks. If your corp is nothing but combat pilots and no one can fly a freighter and able to train for a jump freighter in short order that is your own lookout. Try and recruit some or deal with it. Why should the carrier be the "do all" ship in EVE? Many already said they'd still rather haul in a carrier than a Jump Freighter. So why is it wrong for CCP to give life to the Jump Freighter? Have ships that actually fill their role?

infinityshok	Posted - 2007.10.28 04:50:00 - [71] Originally by: Imperator Jora'h This is amazing. Whining that your carriers cannot double as freighters. Brilliant. A carrier has a 3300 m3 cargo hold and carriers were sidestepping this by a large amount using ships in their hangars to carry cargo too. That is unbalancing. As for people being "logistics" carrier pilots well...if that is why you got a carrier you have other problems. Leave logistics to your logisitcs folks. If your corp is nothing but combat pilots and no one can fly a freighter and able to train for a jump freighter in short order that is your own lookout. Try and recruit some or deal with it. Why should the carrier be the "do all" ship in EVE? Many already said they'd still rather haul in a carrier than a Jump Freighter. So why is it wrong for CCP to give life to the Jump Freighter? Have ships that actually fill their role? The carrier is not a freighter and is nowhere near its capacity. It can carry a single large hauler along with a small hauler. In total it can carry the equivalent of maybe two large haulers. This is not unbalanced. The new jump freighters are a POS. And the acronym POS has nothing to do with starbases. All ships in this effing game have the ability to do something other than their 'intended' role and if your mental state is so unbalanced that you cant realize that it is time to bash your face into your computer until the lights go out. Post the video.
AK Archangel Warhamsters Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.10.28 06:01:00 - [72] ehmm ... first haulers cant have cargo conts inside it, now hauler cant have nothing in cargo, first devs remove carrier from front line, now he lost last usefull role -hauling, time for quick sale it. ------------------------------ kill the devs - save the eve!
Imperator Jora'h	Posted - 2007.10.28 06:12:00 - [73] Edited by: Imperator Jora''h on 28/10/2007 06:14:42 Originally by: infinityshok The carrier is not a freighter and is nowhere near its capacity. It can carry a single large hauler along with a small hauler. In total it can carry the equivalent of maybe two large haulers. This is not unbalanced. There is (or at least was) a way to get a carrier to haul more than twice what a freighter could via mineral compression. This was verified by a Developer and was part of what prompted their move to nerf mineral compression. Of course as soon as they proposed the mineral compression nerf the 0.0 community screamed bloody murder and CCP backed off. Quote: The new jump freighters are a POS. And the acronym POS has nothing to do with starbases. All ships in this effing game have the ability to do something other than their 'intended' role and if your mental state is so unbalanced that you cant realize that it is time to bash your face into your computer until the lights go out. Post the video. The new freighters may be a POS. I don't know. Certainly looks like their jump range is crap. How that argues that carriers ought to also be freighters is beyond me though. And does the personal attack make you feel better? If so seek professional help...you've got issues man.
franny Phoenix Knights Dark Nebula Galactic Empire	Posted - 2007.10.28 07:59:00 - [74] /me starts collection to buy CCP back from EA/Sony PKKP recruitment
Reverend Revelator Elite Storm Enterprises	Posted - 2007.10.28 08:49:00 - [75] It's like the devs ENJOY being mocked... -- Dead People Laugh At The Murder Of Love --
HivemindedIndividual Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2007.10.28 08:58:00 - [76] Haha, I've been reading some of the carrier threads. What a bunch of cry babies, here is a ship that is clearly making huge parts of the game redudant; they totally circumvent supply lines and logistics for starters. I thought this game was supposed to have a mature community. How childish then are you, when the developers ask for constructive feedback, all you do is copypasta some lame signature and scream "RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!".
realbadman	Posted - 2007.10.28 09:30:00 - [77] why do people who don't fly carriers keep posting about ** they know ** all about? must be devalts
Sovereign533 Caldari The Collective Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2007.10.28 09:55:00 - [78] Originally by: Race Rogers 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! look, every 8 days, i have to go to a pos to get the moon minerals out of the silo. now i could do 2 things, OR i take my uber-freighter-speed-Impel with massive cargohold (36k m¦) for 24 jumps to potentionally hostile terratory and back to grap 40k of mineral (so i need to go down and up twice). OR i drop my Impel in my Archon, and jump once to the pos, leave my carrier in the forcefield, board my impel, take most of the mins, jump in my Archon, scoop the Impel and drag the rest in my corporate hangars, and jump back. yes, i might be jumping into a hostile blob located at my pos just as i jump in and die horribly because i jump out of the forcefield. but i won't have to risk getting my slow-as-a-freighter-impel trough 256 potentional gatecamps (32 jumps up, 64 gates, and then the same amount back, and this twice). if i need to refuel, i'd take 2 haulers, Impel and that blockaderunner (which name i forgot). and it would still require me to jump twice. and jumpable freighter? let me guess, needs Freighter lvl 5? i got lvl 1 atm >_<. great time being a logistics officer, Th?
Kerfira	Posted - 2007.10.28 10:13:00 - [79] Edited by: Kerfira on 28/10/2007 10:17:04 Originally by: Imperator Jora'h This is amazing. Whining that your carriers cannot double as freighters. Brilliant. Quite a few of us doesn't really mind that part a lot. Ok, it's nice that carriers are able to do so, but much more important is the ability to carry replacement ships for combat. Making this more cumbersome as the result of nerfing total cargo is annoying and stupid. I usually place my carrier in our base of operations, and have a number of 'dictors, a couple of cov-ops/'ceptors, and 1-2 HACS or a CS in it... This enables me to get a ship that's suitable for what we're doing, instead of me sitting at a POS doing nothing. Ie. it enables me to enjoy and participate in the game. If I had to first unload a ship, then store it, retrieve another and then load it up, every time I need to do something else, that'll seriously inconvenience me, and for no reason whatsoever..... Instead of just banning cargo in stored ships altogether, just make it impossible to store ships that have more than 750 m3 of cargo in them (or just ban industrials/barges). This'll cover all combat ships nicely, but'll prevent large-scale cargo carrying. 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.
Lazuran Gallente Time And ISK Sink Corporation	Posted - 2007.10.28 10:22:00 - [80] Hm, Vanguard looks really good on my new 8800GTX ... EVE still looks so 90's. "...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)

Bonny Lee Caldari Trinitas Inc.	Posted - 2007.10.28 10:26:00 - [81] Originally by: realbadman why do people who don't fly carriers keep posting about ** they know ** all about? must be devalts Because we also do play the game and perhaps dont want the carriers to be the ultimate solution to everything. Its a bad idea that politicans and managers can decide about their own salary. Its a bad idea to let the carrier pilots decide what a carrier should be able to do too.
realbadman	Posted - 2007.10.28 10:39:00 - [82] Quote: dont want the carriers to be the ultimate solution to everything my point exactly. if you actually piloted one, you'd know how inaccurate that statement is. you are wasting my bandwidth
Woddawick	Posted - 2007.10.28 11:12:00 - [83] Edited by: Woddawick on 28/10/2007 11:12:46 Originally by: Wild Rho 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. It's interesting that loads of people deny that the carrier is a 'Swiss army knife' and yet the devs seem able to annoy them by reducing its effectiveness in almost any game area they choose. Having just read the lengthy threads on the subject I can also see that a lot of people are bad at reading comprehension. The rest are apparently just looking for an excuse to get angry and have a go at CCP. I don't think there's anything on the subject the devs can post that wouldn't be flamed and torn apart right now. My advice to the devs is to just do it. It's always a shame when your favourite toy gets nerfed but the current attitude and public hostility displayed by carrier pilots deserves a slapping. If get rids of the people that it seems like it will then good riddance. Those that remain will eb the few sensible ones that are up for a proper discussion with the devs.
MrMunro Caldari PILGRIMS	Posted - 2007.10.28 12:30:00 - [84] 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. Right... If they concider it an exploit, why not remove the jet can exploit first then? I'll tell you why, cuz that would get every player that's mining in EvE to start flooding CCP's mailbox and quit their subscription. This is just them being mad about our reaction to the carrier nerfs, it's just pestering carrier pilots. MrMunro Co-CEO Pilgrims Corporation
Jaabaa Prime Quam Singulari	Posted - 2007.10.28 13:24:00 - [85] Edited by: Jaabaa Prime on 28/10/2007 13:24:33 A legitimate reason for having ships in the ship maintenance hanger with stuff in it hold is when you are flying support with spare ships or taking in ships for other members. What about ammunition, charges, modules, etc.. Want to dump it all into the corp hangar ? Try sorting out that logistic nightmare (it would be even worse for a MS). If CCP keep on going at this rate, we'll only be able to store unpackaged ships in carrier class ships, and have people assemble, fit and stock up in space. If you want to stop them from being used as "hauler haulers", then just change it so that industrials can't be stored with anything in their cargo hold. This gets better by the day (NOT ). --
Andrue Amarr	Posted - 2007.10.28 14:05:00 - [86] What I see with all this fuss and bother is that CCP are right in what they say. After all - if carriers weren't a master-of-all-trades why would people complain quite so much? Sure people would be a bit ***ed off after investing time and money in their carrier but it'd only be one ship in their hangar. The fact that people are so annoyed about the proposed change suggests that those who fly carriers are so reliant on them that they don't have an alternative. And that* is exactly what the devs are unhappy about and they are right to be unhappy. Eve needs variety ships should be specialised in role and require appropriate fittings for each role they are capable of. Losing one ship to the nerf bat should be nothing more than a minor irritation. Pilots should have enough alternatives to be able to just adapt. The fact that so many carrier pilots think that they cannot adapt either means that they all suck monkey doo-das or else have got used to only needing one ship in their hangar. Either way something has got to go. -- (Battle hardened industrialist) [Brackley, UK] My budgie can say "ploppy bottom". You have been warned.
Andrue Amarr	Posted - 2007.10.28 14:06:00 - [87] Originally by: Imperator Jora'h This is amazing. Whining that your carriers cannot double as freighters. Brilliant. Yup. It pretty much proves the point that CCP are trying to make. -- (Battle hardened industrialist) [Brackley, UK] My budgie can say "ploppy bottom". You have been warned.
Macro Slasher	Posted - 2007.10.28 14:42:00 - [88] Originally by: Viqer Fell 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. Bingo. Okay, that was a mistake. Now remove that capacity altogether.
Druadan Gallente Aristotle Enterprises Ethereal Dawn	Posted - 2007.10.28 22:41:00 - [89] Originally by: Macro Slasher Originally by: Viqer Fell 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. Bingo. Okay, that was a mistake. Now remove that capacity altogether. Not without giving us the logistics guys time to respec. Also, bump. Screw you, Jacques.
C601	Posted - 2007.11.01 03:52:00 - [90] Originally by: Wild Rho 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. ^^This ....

Nobler Caldari Orion Ore International Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.11.05 17:51:00 - [91] Laughs at all the devs posting in this thread as alts. Anway. Guess just take away the maintaince bay on the carrier. 4 accounts ending November 22nd...
Aurinkokuningas	Posted - 2007.11.05 17:53:00 - [92] Originally by: Nobler 4 accounts ending November 22nd... Likely more than 4 other players not cancelling because they can enter low sec without having to deal ****ers with solowtfpwnmachines.
Nobler Caldari Orion Ore International Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.11.05 17:58:00 - [93] Originally by: Aurinkokuningas Likely more than 4 other players not cancelling because they can enter low sec without having to deal ****ers with solowtfpwnmachines. [:roll: Carriers are not solowtfpwnmachines. in a 1 vs 1 fight I hope that a well fitted carrier would come out on top of a battleship, maybe even in a 3 vs 1 (even it just sat there and tanked the damage). Carriers can be killed rather easily. This thread is not about the fracking fighter nerf, it's about putting ships w/ ammo and supplies in them and delivering them to their destination. You should be banned for trolling and posting not contructive comments in this thread...oh wait your Amarr never mind.
William DeMeo Gallente the united	Posted - 2007.11.05 18:12:00 - [94] Originally by: Fswd Edited by: Fswd on 27/10/2007 12:08:10 Edited by: Fswd on 27/10/2007 12:07:56 Edited by: Fswd on 27/10/2007 12:07:23 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. Then why the hell are the nerfing how many fighters they can launch? Make your mind up or stfu. Yarr
Ludwig Wittgenstein Minmatar Minmitar Scorpion Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.11.05 18:43:00 - [95] The carrier nerf is uncalled for at this time. It is not necessary and will further move this game towards the fate of others that did not listen to their player base. The developers have not learned the lessons that others have in games such as SWG that ended up being a dead ghost town when changes were made that made the game one fit for a two year old to play. As a carrier pilot that have spent billions of isks training and securing my ship, I do not want any changes made. As a former SWG player, I know the power of the customer to walk away to another game when changes are made such as this one which is not in the interest of players that have been playing for years. Dont make the same mistakes as star wars galaxies and retract changes that are capricious and not useful to the players that have dedicated time and isks to making this game what it is today!
Occara	Posted - 2007.11.05 18:54:00 - [96] Originally by: Druadan 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. Are you smoking too much ***** or something? There is no obligation for the devs to ask you in order to change ANYTHING. You pay to play this game. You do not pay for the game to be made to suit you. If you don't like the way it is, you quit. What is up with the sense of entitlement that some people have from spending tiny amounts of money monthly on a service?
LUH 3471	Posted - 2007.11.05 18:54:00 - [97] Edited by: LUH 3471 on 05/11/2007 18:55:53 Originally by: Ludwig Wittgenstein The carrier nerf is uncalled for at this time. It is not necessary and will further move this game towards the fate of others that did not listen to their player base. The developers have not learned the lessons that others have in games such as SWG that ended up being a dead ghost town when changes were made that made the game one fit for a two year old to play. As a carrier pilot that have spent billions of isks training and securing my ship, I do not want any changes made. As a former SWG player, I know the power of the customer to walk away to another game when changes are made such as this one which is not in the interest of players that have been playing for years. Dont make the same mistakes as star wars galaxies and retract changes that are capricious and not useful to the players that have dedicated time and isks to making this game what it is today! listen to this man ccp for he is speaking the truth stop hurting yourself ccp pls
Jones Maloy Minmatar Unified Naval Command	Posted - 2007.11.05 19:13:00 - [98] ahem add the cargo bay volume to the ships total volume. indy will take up X space, where X = the ship's volume + cargo bay volume. same for containers. no more packing 2000m3 of cargo into a 50m3 container. same should go for ships. (i haven't played in a few years so things might have changed) the above will: allow carriers to store ships with ammo and moduals in and on them. prevent carriers from carrying too much cargo by nesting ships. fixes the problem without changing anything else. that is the ideal solution. feedback appreciated, because nothing will get done without talking about it. ----- copy and paste from other thread for those too lazy to read it. --- WCS Nerf yes i'm still angry
Sebastien LeReparteur Minmatar SpaceTravelers Freelance Corp	Posted - 2007.11.05 19:32:00 - [99] Edited by: Sebastien LeReparteur on 05/11/2007 19:36:12 Edited by: Sebastien LeReparteur on 05/11/2007 19:34:04 Here we go again! Carriers the new evil of the month... There is no problems with the Mother ship in low sec or the Lag created by drone... What is wring is just that carrier ARE USED FOR LOGISTICS. Oh wait now you are saying that carriers should not do POS logistics but only field combat logistics? Only sounds to me as a massive boost to titan owning Alliance, they can jump around those freighter without any troubles thus effectively boosting supply lines.
Nobler Caldari Orion Ore International Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.11.05 20:28:00 - [100] Edited by: Nobler on 05/11/2007 20:29:45 Edited by: Nobler on 05/11/2007 20:29:13 Originally by: Sebastien LeReparteur Only sounds to me as a massive boost to titan owning Alliance, they can jump around those freighter without any troubles thus effectively boosting supply lines. According to this thread, Alliances will no longer be able to use Titans to jump a Freighter around. Linky

Bomber1945	Posted - 2007.11.05 20:28:00 - [101] This is impossible. I mean if they do this then it will be impossible to move POS fuel. Some of us in smaller corporations out in omist Will basically be shut down. So unless you are in a huge alliance witch can move obelisks down the pipe from Empire. It will be impossible to enjoy the advantages of having a tower. Like invention, moon mining, and so on. So much for eve of allowing people to be aspireing. 0.0 will just be a place for those who've already won the game to prevent anyone else from having success. Unless CCP make the jump freighter just as good and accessible as carriers. In which case don't nerf the carriers in the first place!
ChaosOne Caldari DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.05 20:49:00 - [102] Currenlty on sisi, No ship with maintence bay can have goods in the hold of stored ships except charges (ammo) frieghters have had there mass increased x10, they can no longer use jump bridges due to the amount of ozone used/ able to be stored in the jump bridge hold. A knock on effect has been that they can no longer warp long distances. Agility has been increased x 10 to offset mass. T2 freighters are estimated at being in the price region on 3.6bil to build (excluding buying the new t2 component bpo's) and the cost of inventing which leads to ----- 6 week copy time for a 1 run oblisk bpc, 64 mechanical enginering and 64 starship enginering. Unknown what the % chance of inventing success is.
Sebastien LeReparteur Minmatar SpaceTravelers Freelance Corp	Posted - 2007.11.05 20:49:00 - [103] Yeah! Just when we decide to try out 0.0, POS and all... Carrier Nerf!! Cause we don<t you to have fun. We need you to send insane amount of time in worthless skills so pilots get so tied up to a freaking hauler logistics ships! What a freaking deal!! We struggle to get a POS and a carrier together but NO!!! Now you need a freaking ship 4 or 5 times the value of the LOGISTIC capital to do logistics.
Kate Atlantis	Posted - 2007.11.05 20:58:00 - [104] Originally by: Occara What is up with the sense of entitlement that some people have from spending tiny amounts of money monthly on a service? You must be a CCP Employee. Only a CCP employee would think in this realm of customer service. Most people actually have to work to have money to play EVE-Online. Some of us, have to commute to work everday, sit in boring traffic, and then once we are at work, we have to put up with stupid people, sometimes employees sometimes customers. I'm not sure what country you are from if you are indeed not a CCP employee, but over here in the U.S. we have to treat customers like gold or we loose our jobs, unless one happens to work for the Government. So back to your "spending tiny amounts of money monthly on a service?" Obvsiouly it's not a service because we don't get refunds when it's down. It's a game, and as with most games out there you get friendly support, more times than not in less than 24 hours, and a fracking game manual. And to some people it may not be a tiny amount of money, as "tiny" is not an engineering term it has no set value associated with it. Also if you market the game to U.S. customers you will find that people in the U.S. want everything they can get for their money, and you have to deal with the whines and complaints too.
Viqer Fell Minmatar Trinity Nova KIA Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.05 21:01:00 - [105] I spoke to Zulupark at the fanfest and he cleared up my misconceptions carriers can carry ships that have both ammo and boosters in their holds just not modules themselves. the ship maint bay is now 1m and the Bs size got reduced. All in all i am not too bothered about the changes now and a lot happier with the way things will move forwards. cheers zulu, hope you enjoyed the beer Click here to visit our site
Nobler Caldari Orion Ore International Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.11.05 21:03:00 - [106] Originally by: Viqer Fell I spoke to Zulupark at the fanfest and he cleared up my misconceptions carriers can carry ships that have both ammo and boosters in their holds just not modules themselves. the ship maint bay is now 1m and the Bs size got reduced. All in all i am not too bothered about the changes now and a lot happier with the way things will move forwards. cheers zulu, hope you enjoyed the beer So carriers can fit a battleship in the bay? That almost makes up for it.
Alski Gallente Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.05 21:05:00 - [107] Originally by: Viqer Fell I spoke to Zulupark at the fanfest and he cleared up my misconceptions carriers can carry ships that have both ammo and boosters in their holds just not modules themselves. the ship maint bay is now 1m and the Bs size got reduced. All in all i am not too bothered about the changes now and a lot happier with the way things will move forwards. cheers zulu, hope you enjoyed the beer That makes it seem like the change is kinda final. Mmmm... logistics hell comeing to a server near you soon! If you'll excuse me now i think i'll go blow up some of our own POS's - (combat) Patch belonging to CCP hits your drones, wrecking their liberty and freedom.
Nhi'Khuna e X i l e Atrum Tempestas Foedus	Posted - 2007.11.05 21:08:00 - [108] It's funny, I agree with the carrier pilots TBH, as one who isn't at the moment. Carriers do fill a role for smaller corporations to go out into 0.0 and make a name for themselves through being able to haul logistical equipment for pos setup, etc etc. Otherwise this is relegated to large corporations that will be able to afford the jump freighters (obscenely expensive imho). I just really don't see the issue in keeping them the way they are. They never posed an issue to me and I've run into my fair share of carriers. With the exception of the occasional low sec pirate using his carrier on gates (Coughs: Ginger...) it's really quite easy to get away from these things. Sure, they are big, they are nasty, but generally they can't get on your ass quickly enough to take you out if you are actually paying attention to the screen. Anyhow, carriers are a pretty big component of the game now, at least out in 0.0 and if you take something like this away I sure hope the devs think about replacing it with something more cost effective than the jump freighter... I mean really, how accessible are those going to be for the next year?
Tobias Creed Minmatar Draconian Toymaker Corp	Posted - 2007.11.05 21:13:00 - [109] I have a solution, at least to the problem with carrying ammo. just have whatever is in the cargo bays of any ships in the carrier take up space in the carrier's cargo bay. I doubt you'd need more than 3,500 M^3 of ammo, and you could still launch fully loaded. This also keeps carriers from being used as haulers
Ja'kar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2007.11.05 21:13:00 - [110] Edited by: Ja''kar on 05/11/2007 21:13:49 Sorry I don't fly carriers but am glad they cannot carry cargo-also I hope Alliances get smaller as a result! I would also hope that these new freighters cannot jump through low sec!

Draygo Korvan Merch Industrial	Posted - 2007.11.05 21:21:00 - [111] Originally by: Aurinkokuningas Originally by: Nobler 4 accounts ending November 22nd... Likely more than 4 other players not cancelling because they can enter low sec without having to deal ****ers with solowtfpwnmachines. How will nerfing logistics of that carrier ganking people in lowsec make those 4 people keep playing the game. Hint: It's not Hint again: logistic capability has nothing to do with combat capability. Also the arguement that the logistic nerf of carriers will help smaller entities get a bite of 0.0 space is laughable at best. The arguements will not hold in reality. Instead it will probably make it much more difficult to carve a little spot of 0.0 for yourself. --
Sebastien LeReparteur Minmatar SpaceTravelers Freelance Corp	Posted - 2007.11.05 21:22:00 - [112] Edited by: Sebastien LeReparteur on 05/11/2007 21:23:02 Originally by: Ja'kar Edited by: Ja''kar on 05/11/2007 21:13:49 Sorry I don't fly carriers but am glad they cannot carry cargo-also I hope Alliances get smaller as a result! I would also hope that these new freighters cannot jump through low sec! Maybe then we can call this game something else then Eve... I have no trouble with modification to the carriers, but the new planned modifications only makes existing Alliances stronger actually. More POS Cyno Net for the shorter Jump ranges.
Ja'kar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2007.11.05 21:28:00 - [113] Sebastien LeReparteur Hey could you explain your points a bit more I don't get what you mean Thanks
Yggdrassil STK Scientific Black-Out	Posted - 2007.11.05 21:35:00 - [114] Ok, actually gonna post something that I've never ever came close to posting before. This change will effectively take away the fun in the game for me. It will leave the boring stuff on a select few in my alliance, and force multiple freighter trips 40-50 jumps one way per week. I do not want to play a game where I got to use 5-6 hours "work" a couple of times each week where you half the time don't see a hostile, and the other half you got to log off freighters due to hostile sightings. Perhaps some think that those freighter ops are fun, I don't. Having POS'es up is basically a MUST, there is no choice, if you want to hold stations out in 0.0. I seriously hope these changes aren't coming in, cause missioning bores the **** out of me and isn't an option anymore - multiple freighter ops per week will do the same. When you don't have fun in a game anymore, you look elsewhere for something that IS fun... Yggdrassil
slip66 Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.11.05 21:36:00 - [115] Originally by: Rawthorm 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 Why cant you use the jump freighters? To replace them in this role? Originally by: StOrM ViPeR Theres a skill called surgical strike in game I've learned that it actually stands for Band of Brothers
Sebastien LeReparteur Minmatar SpaceTravelers Freelance Corp	Posted - 2007.11.05 21:40:00 - [116] Edited by: Sebastien LeReparteur on 05/11/2007 21:46:21 Edited by: Sebastien LeReparteur on 05/11/2007 21:42:40 Edited by: Sebastien LeReparteur on 05/11/2007 21:41:59 Originally by: Ja'kar Sebastien LeReparteur Hey could you explain your points a bit more I don't get what you mean Thanks To curb the lost of space, they introduced a new capital ship called the Jump Freighter, mostly as useless in 0.0 as the original guy except it as a jump range but smaller then the Carrier 4 or 5 vs 6.5 (something similar). While big alliances can afford a Jump Freighter, whit the additional extra POS to make those Cyno tower network. Btw jump freighters are 4 or 5 times the price of a carrier with a ZERO survivability... Big alliances can afford a few if not dozens, the small guy will quit after loosing is. I short shaft those small alliance that now new to spend 4 times the initial investment or to those risky transport runs... Now mind you I am for a nerf of some kind, what about module that represent that ship array or the corp hangar? I would prefer to "FIT" a hauler carrier, a battle carrier, or a logistics carrier. Possible modules: fighter hangar Corporation hangar Cargo Hold refitting array The carrier is indeed an Swiss Army knife, the poor man's... MothaShip, Rorqual, titan and the new Jump Freighter are the real tools.
Empire marketslave	Posted - 2007.11.05 21:50:00 - [117] Originally by: slip66 Originally by: Rawthorm 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 Why cant you use the jump freighters? To replace them in this role? because they will probally cost 5 bil and takes close to 2 month extra trainning time
milinkoee Bastage Incorporated THORN Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.05 22:00:00 - [118] I like this change, as I don't feel carriers should be taking the place of haulers/freighters. I miss the days where bestowers might drop valuable cargo in low sec. YAAARRRRR!!!!!! Bastage, Inc. Worst Pirates Ever!!!
Nhi'Khuna e X i l e Atrum Tempestas Foedus	Posted - 2007.11.05 22:21:00 - [119] Quote: because they will probally cost 5 bil and takes close to 2 month extra trainning time Yup looks like a less for more situation kids... How awesome does that sound?
SiJira	Posted - 2007.11.05 22:31:00 - [120] Originally by: milinkoee I like this change, as I don't feel carriers should be taking the place of haulers/freighters. I miss the days where bestowers might drop valuable cargo in low sec. YAAARRRRR!!!!!! you need to come find me and ill show you YAAAARRR ____ __ ________ _sig below_ devs and gms cant modify my sig if they tried! _lies above_ CCP Morpheus was here Morpheus Fails. You need colors!! -Kaemonn [yellow]Kaem

Siresa Talesi	Posted - 2007.11.06 01:12:00 - [121] Originally by: Darius Fox Originally by: Davlos There was a game that was awesome at first, then it got stupidly fked 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. Wrong. SWG died because the Devs nerfed things for the fun of it, until the game became a huge nerf circle jerk (nerf BH then Jedi, rinse, repeat). Finally the game became so screwed they nerfed everything with little notice or consultation with the playerbase. Everyone left. Then the game died. I left and came here because of the minimal nerfage by devs. However REV III is making me wonder whether CCP have morphed into SOE Darius got it right. How soon do people forget history? SWG did not die because the devs listened to the players, but rather the exact opposite. If they had listened to the players, they would have fixed the legions of bugs in the game instead of working on new content that no one wanted. SOE was the perfect example of how to ignore and tick off your customers. Originally by:** Karlemgne I'd like to point out that SWG still has as many players as EVE Online does. I'd also like to point out that the changes to the game probably come from Lucas Arts, but hey. Well, considering that EVE has nothing to go on but it's own quality as a game and very limited advertising, while SWG was based on one of the biggest movie franchises of all time with a massive fanbase even before it launched, then the fact that they have about the same number of players is really saying something about how badly SOE/LucasArts screwed up. So far as the changes to carriers, I think it's a bad idea. I don't fly carriers, and I definetly don't think that they should be used as transport ships, but if the ship's role is to carry a fleet of smaller craft into battle, it's going to cause a lot of problems if that fleet can't have any ammo reserves! If they want to keep the carriers from being glorified haulers, that's great, but they need to find a way around this dilemma. Keep carriers from being abused by all means, but don't do it at the cost of crippling their intended role, that's just foolish. (edit: it sounds like this situation may have been resolved, if so, great! :) )
Lazuran Gallente Time And ISK Sink Corporation	Posted - 2007.11.06 01:17:00 - [122] Originally by: Aurinkokuningas Originally by: Nobler 4 accounts ending November 22nd... Likely more than 4 other players not cancelling because they can enter low sec without having to deal ***ers with solowtfpwnmachines. People who think that Carriers are "solowtfpwnmachines" in lowsec would probably get ganked by 3 noobships. Not even CCP came up with such poor reasoning, they admitted that they need to nerf the Carriers because people simply use them too much. "...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)*
Devious Syn	Posted - 2007.11.06 01:21:00 - [123] Originally by: Fswd Edited by: Fswd on 27/10/2007 12:08:10 Edited by: Fswd on 27/10/2007 12:07:56 Edited by: Fswd on 27/10/2007 12:07:23 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. oh gawd plz stfu
ViolenTUK Gallente Vindicated Exiles 101010 Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.06 02:22:00 - [124] Another pointless carrier nerf. Ships should be allowed to store anything they want in their cargo bays when they are in the carriers ships maintenance bay. www.eve-players.com
Sharupak Minmatar Knights Of the Black Sun Rule of Three	Posted - 2007.11.06 03:22:00 - [125] The carrier has a cargo hold, a corporate hanger, and a mainentance bay to put ** in and you ****s are crying because you have factor in an extra what 5km3 of space in your collective 2555000 of space! ROFLMAO on the titanic stealth nerf there! _______________________________________________ RuntimeError: ChainEvent is blocking by design, but you're block trapped. You have'll have to find some alternative means to do Your Thing, dude.
Garborg	Posted - 2007.11.06 03:27:00 - [126] Edited by: Garborg on 06/11/2007 03:27:24 Edited by: Garborg on 06/11/2007 03:26:56 Originally by: Fswd Edited by: Fswd on 27/10/2007 12:08:10 In some way, this can even be regarded as an exploit, like how miners use jet-cans. *AhCrap why didn't someone tell me I have been exploiting using a jetcan for mining!*
Herring Pimpology Free Trade Zone.	Posted - 2007.11.06 03:52:00 - [127] Yay. Another nerf in a valiant attempt to make this game NOT FUN.. Quit changing game mechanics that have existed and worked for YEARS. I swear I will start calling you SOE instead of CCP; you're starting to make this game suck ass logistically. CCP - please stop with the nerfing and boost something already.
Minsc Gallente A.W.M Ka-Tet	Posted - 2007.11.06 03:55:00 - [128] Have carriers even been out for years? Originally by: Sharkbait please for the love of god read the dam stickies
Merrin Farthing KDM Corp Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.11.06 03:56:00 - [129] do we reaqlly need to make POS logistics even less fun than they are now?
Sharupak Minmatar Knights Of the Black Sun Rule of Three	Posted - 2007.11.06 04:33:00 - [130] I did 3 pos refuels in my hoarder. 22 round trip it takes about all fing day!!! _______________________________________________ RuntimeError: ChainEvent is blocking by design, but you're block trapped. You have'll have to find some alternative means to do Your Thing, dude.

Ja'kar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2007.11.06 09:25:00 - [131] Quit changing game mechanics that have existed and worked for YEARS. I swear I will start calling you SOE instead of CCP; you're starting to make this game suck ass logistically. *cough Cought WT0 Cough -
Ares Lightfeather Gallente	Posted - 2007.11.06 10:51:00 - [132] Well, after reading the post, it seems they just prevented people from putting transports in carrier cargo bays to carry more stuff, and nothing else. "Legitimate" use of carriers (transporting chips with ammo and stuff) still works. You can still jump with a carrier and a cargo full of fuel, and you can also (in due time) use the jump freighter do to so. So what I'd like is for the change to take place after they let people train for T2 freighters, but jump freighters need a price change (they are too expensive) and better jump capability. -- Siggie ! Come back here ! -- Originally by: Victor Valka Originally by: MotherMoon well a drone UI is a bit of an artist job Drone AI is obviously done by an artist too. One that is heavily into abstract
Lucre STK Scientific Black-Out	Posted - 2007.11.06 11:15:00 - [133] Originally by: Sharupak The carrier has a cargo hold, a corporate hanger, and a mainentance bay to put ** in and you ****s are crying because you have factor in an extra what 5km3 of space in your collective 2555000 of space! ROFLMAO on the titanic stealth nerf there! If you think that maintenance bay and cargo hold are equivalent in their usage and can just be lumped together, then I'm afraid we'll have to apply a 0.0 weighting factor to your considered opinions on this matter. Meanwhile I'll heartily second those saying that alternative logistic techniques need to be ingame, debugged, denerfed and pilots and industry up to speed before any changes are made to carrier logistic capabilities.
Hikaru Kai	Posted - 2007.11.06 11:26:00 - [134] Originally by: Sharupak I did 3 pos refuels in my hoarder. 22 round trip it takes about all fing day!!! Maybe use a better ship?
Saint Luka The Illuminati. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.11.06 11:30:00 - [135] So, CCP identified a potential problem and is trying to avoid Capitals-Online, fact. Giving "noobs" a fighting chance in the game, fact. Nerfing a ship roles too oblivion in which many of your old (loyal) playerbase (not the new players who leave in 7 months) which most of have several accounts is destructive. Remember what happened too the ever popular SWG, they had the*****y outlook that whatever they changed/did would still "keep increasing the playerbase" but it effectively killed the game. Think twice about what your doing -
Kayna Eelai Gallente GNATHIC	Posted - 2007.11.06 11:34:00 - [136] Edited by: Kayna Eelai on 06/11/2007 11:33:54 Originally by: Rawthorm 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 and your point is? i'd just suggest one change: the NAME. don't call em CARRIERS as ppl. thinks it means they can CARRY whatever they want. you know what kind of transports bring supplies to the warzone IRL? trucks. defensless lame huge cargobay trucks... wiuth an escort. and imo: that's how it should be in EVE. and it would open a door to loads of new strategies too. fixed to 23.15 kB (23710 bytes)
Tharrn Amarr Epitoth Fleetyards Vigilia Valeria	Posted - 2007.11.06 11:34:00 - [137] The 'carebears' who can fly Rorquals and Jumpfreighters for their logistical needs lol at you :P 137k on the Rorqual after Trinity is pretty decent. Keep crying about your poor, poor carriers but make room for the trucks. Now recruiting!
Lazuran Gallente Time And ISK Sink Corporation	Posted - 2007.11.06 11:35:00 - [138] Originally by: Sharupak The carrier has a cargo hold, a corporate hanger, and a mainentance bay to put ** in and you ***s are crying because you have factor in an extra what 5km3 of space in your collective 2555000 of space! ROFLMAO on the titanic stealth nerf there! Some of you guys are really totally clueless, but we're having a lot of fun watching you making yourselves look stupid. Carriers can (now on TQ) carry 10.000m¦ in the corporate hangars, around 3500m¦ in the cargo bay (mostly used for fuel - it's needed there for jumping) and more than 50.000m¦ in the cargo hold of industrial ships inside the ship maintenance array. Taking the latter away means that around 80% of the hauling capacity of Carriers is gone. "...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)*
Lazuran Gallente Time And ISK Sink Corporation	Posted - 2007.11.06 11:36:00 - [139] Originally by: Minsc Have carriers even been out for years? Yes. Unlike the whining noobs. "...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)
Rainbow Bear Care Bears	Posted - 2007.11.06 11:38:00 - [140] Originally by: MEEATYOU Carebears belong in empire. Warriors belong in low sec and 0.0 Leave me and my corp out of this! ------------------------------------- Where Care Bears Came From!

Lazuran Gallente Time And ISK Sink Corporation	Posted - 2007.11.06 11:40:00 - [141] Originally by: Saint Luka So, CCP identified a potential problem and is trying to avoid Capitals-Online, fact. Giving "noobs" a fighting chance in the game, fact. They could have done this in early 2006 or so, when Goonswarm was boldly throwing T1 frigs at Carriers and Dreads. Instead, they buffed Capital ships. Now that Goonswarm and other alliances have plenty of Capital ships too, they are nerfing them. Hmm... In the end, this looks like the exact opposite of "giving noobs a fighting chance". It's more like "keeping the good stuff for a small elite" (with the good stuff being titans and the new T2 ships soon, few will have skills and ISK for them). "...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)
Vardemis Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2007.11.06 11:43:00 - [142] 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. Well said, cannot really add more.
Thicky McThick	Posted - 2007.11.06 11:58:00 - [143] Since when would a carrier be designed to fight on the front line. It would make more sense for it to live up to it's name and be a carrier, bringing in supplies and ships, together with a behind the lines full support setup for launching and repairs. Being able to allocate fighters is exactly what it should be doing. rather than using them itself, as an up front fighting machine. Make it the support vessel again. If that leaves a need for another ship , then create some more offensive caps, and stop messing with the poor old carrier , trying to make it something it is not meant to be. Post with your Alt and not your Main, 'cos I don't care about your Name.
Lazuran Gallente Time And ISK Sink Corporation	Posted - 2007.11.06 12:04:00 - [144] Originally by: Thicky McThick Since when would a carrier be designed to fight on the front line. Since CCP buffed its HP for this reason. Quote: It would make more sense for it to live up to it's name and be a carrier, bringing in supplies and ships, together with a behind the lines full support setup for launching and repairs. So that's why CCP is nerfing the hauling capacity of Carriers too. Quote: Being able to allocate fighters is exactly what it should be doing. rather than using them itself, as an up front fighting machine. Make it the support vessel again. If that leaves a need for another ship , then create some more offensive caps, and stop messing with the poor old carrier , trying to make it something it is not meant to be. They already did ... Too late. "...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)
Osiris Occido Laughing Leprechauns Corporation	Posted - 2007.11.06 15:25:00 - [145] Isn't the ship called a "carrier" Carrier: #static# Pilot cleared for take-off from Hanger XY-43 with replacement ship, over Pilot: #static# Copy that, over Carrier: #static# Fly safe, don't forget you have nothing to reload and I hope you don't need cap boosters. Your exotic dancer has to stay here too. I'd hold your ammo and charges but then I'd have no room for my fuel, over static ... ... Pilot: #static# !@#$%^ Perfect Quality with Windows Movie Maker
Jakus Cemendur Caldari Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2007.11.06 15:38:00 - [146] And here was me thinking they'd based the name and what they wanted it's role to be on the modern day warship of the same name.
transport monkey	Posted - 2007.11.06 16:47:00 - [147] nice so we getting jump freighters and carriers are getting nerfed. Ok they don't want to see us using them as haulers. but in my case I just finished all the required skills to jump into a carrier strictly for hauling because till now I had no choice. If I had known this a half year earlier I would have trained Freighter 5 instead of BS5+DI5 and it would have been fine. But I honestly think if they provide a ship like the carrier they should thought first about how people use it and than seeing that they are the only way to survive (logistic wise) in deep 0.0, so like 60 jumps from empire. So if you nerf the carrier, provide at least a way to get out to deep 0.0 easier. like more access points. It would make it more fun out there because you don't spend all your playtime with logistics. The second thing is a carrier is affordable for small corps a sa hauler, now the alternative of: a) a dreadnought b) a rorqual c) a jump freighter are a little bit more expensive. I rather do the task with a 1 Billion ship than using a 2 - 3 Billion ship. So please put a new logistic mod on the carrier: mod a) fighter control - can control fighters but limited maintenance bay mod b) logistic control - provides boost to tanking and logistics but no fighters control mod c) transport control - provides a significant boost of stuff what can carried, but can't use fighters or logistic modules when equipped with this module a module can be only installed one and can be only fitted to it in station. would make us all happy and should requires racial carrier skill level 1 so we don't have to waste more training time for this ship.
Osiris Occido Laughing Leprechauns Corporation	Posted - 2007.11.06 18:11:00 - [148] Originally by: Osiris Occido Isn't the ship called a "carrier" Carrier: #static# Pilot cleared for take-off from Hanger XY-43 with replacement ship, over Pilot: #static# Copy that, over Carrier: #static# Fly safe, don't forget you have nothing to reload and I hope you don't need cap boosters. Your exotic dancer has to stay here too. I'd hold your ammo and charges but then I'd have no room for my fuel, over static ... ... Pilot: #static# !@#$%^ I take this back, I logged on the test server and saw that my combat ships can still have ammo and charges in my carrier. This is good that isn't changing and it can carry combat ships. I was preparing for a jump freighter anyway, so this change isn't as bad as I thought. This actually opens up more dangerous transport jumps because most carriers can defend themselves and their cyno jumping thru non-blue space, but in a defenseless jump freighter, this is much, much more dangerous if you get a bad bounce, for instance. oh, also loving the new 1,000,000m¦ ship bay Perfect Quality with Windows Movie Maker
Remember When	Posted - 2007.11.06 18:23:00 - [149] I wish they would listen to the player base for once on this matter.
Rhaegor Stormborn Pestilent Industries Amalgamated The Volition Cult	Posted - 2007.11.06 18:25:00 - [150] Originally by: Merrin Farthing do we reaqlly need to make POS logistics even less fun than they are now? Yes. 0.0 space is under used. More smaller alliances holding more densely populated space. Rhaegor Stormborn Fleet Admiral - Pestilent Industries Amalgamated [PIA] Recruitment Thread

Phony	Posted - 2007.11.06 18:34:00 - [151] well wots next this carrier thing is a crok of ****e all the skil time carrier pilots have invested... wasted...all the builders efforts goin to go dwn the pan as the market will be floded soon bah sod it
Lar Min	Posted - 2007.11.06 18:50:00 - [152] I think people might be missing an obvious reason for this nerf. It gives the Black ops/Covt ops folks something to do by chasing down the Jump freighter that is carrying the enemy fleet ammo. Of course you have to allocate ships to defend your own against the enemy Black ops/Covt ops. See, their learning how to spread the blob around inside a system!
Prydeless Vengeance of the Fallen Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2007.11.06 18:53:00 - [153] I really wish ccp would take a step back from the carriers and get of there nuts. This is idiotic along with all the other ideas on carriers. Leave them the hell alone! Disclaimer: I am a God.
Trask Kilraen The Older Gamers R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.11.06 19:12:00 - [154] I don't mind so much that carriers get nerfed as jump-haulers. BUT. It IS a big deal that ships in the bay can't have their own supplies. It makes carrying fitting and stocked replacment ships MUCH more of a hassle. That is bad. If CCP really wants to nerf the carrier's hauling ability, go for it I guess, but it should still be useful as a CARRIER (e.g. a ship that carries other ships) ------------------------------------------
Aurinkokuningas	Posted - 2007.11.06 19:15:00 - [155] Originally by: Trask Kilraen I don't mind so much that carriers get nerfed as jump-haulers. BUT. It IS a big deal that ships in the bay can't have their own supplies. It makes carrying fitting and stocked replacment ships MUCH more of a hassle. That is bad. If CCP really wants to nerf the carrier's hauling ability, go for it I guess, but it should still be useful as a CARRIER (e.g. a ship that carries other ships) You need teamwork. Logistics ships bringing ammo, fuel and spare parts. It is good.
Molly Neuro	Posted - 2007.11.06 19:17:00 - [156] Brilliant idea - just fantastic I only say this as.... No one I know ever puts ammo / mods or cap boosters etc in their ships I have freighter 5 (2 months??) trained up for the super new Tech 2 jump freighter I have the approximately 8 billion isk it is estimated to cost to buy this super jump freighter I don't mind spending the rest of my eve life jumping crap for everyone cause no one else has a super new T2 jump freighter Carriers moving small amounts of materials about was RUINING THE GAME!!111 (somehow) The massive increase in corp hanger size has made up for this excellent and well focussed nerf I have read your dev post on this subject and agree with the absolutely nothing you put in there Nerfing carriers by removing GSC's was not enough - we the payers demand more nerfs Why would I want to carry stuff about for POS, corp mates, alliance ops when I could use it as a solo pwn mobile!! (not sure how but I'll figure it out) Thank you so much for another well thought out excellent change to this game, I'd much rather you spent time on carrier changes that no one wants than fixing amarr or removing lag or making drones attack who you ask them to or getting fighters to actually come back to the carrier when you ask etc etc etc
Mistress Oriana	Posted - 2007.11.06 19:22:00 - [157] Devs are out of touch with the game. I think we as a community believe the game designers are a small bunch of people who throw ideas around, know what they are talking about and understand all aspects of the game. This simply doesnt appear to be the case - CCP have recruited alot of people, some good, and some (in this case) obviously bad. There are alterior motives at play here - nothing to do with how uber carriers are.
Reverend Revelator Elite Storm Enterprises	Posted - 2007.11.06 19:30:00 - [158] Originally by: Mistress Oriana Devs are out of touch with the game. I think we as a community believe the game designers are a small bunch of people who throw ideas around, know what they are talking about and understand all aspects of the game. This simply doesnt appear to be the case - CCP have recruited alot of people, some good, and some (in this case) obviously bad. There are alterior motives at play here - nothing to do with how uber carriers are. I think it has been proven to everyones dissatisfaction that the devs in fact play the game way way too much, and so they do in fact know the gameplay quite well. -- Dead People Laugh At The Murder Of Love --
ViolenTUK Gallente Vindicated Exiles 101010 Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.06 19:32:00 - [159] IÆm all for ships being used for any purpose that their pilots see fit. This meets the criteria that the developers wanted for eve online as a sandbox where anything you want to do you can do. For the developers seeing a carrier as a hauler and actively trying to nerf its ability is contrary to eves design ethic I donÆt see a carrier being used as a hauler as an exploit at all. I donÆt want to anthropomorphize eve but carriers in modern warfare are use to haul a fleets provisions and as such are the true haulers of the sea. www.eve-players.com
Insidi Us Amarr Suicidal Mercenaries Pure.	Posted - 2007.11.06 19:36:00 - [160] Originally by: Mistress Oriana Devs are out of touch with the game. You are not the game. Changes that don't follow your opinions in lockstep do not make them out of touch with the game, just your opinion of how it should be run. Opinion. ------------- RIP Constructive Criticism

Tananda Vaakaja	Posted - 2007.11.06 19:39:00 - [161] What is rather upsetting here is not just the carrier nerf (let's not forget it's ONE ship among several others that are getting gelded.. interceptor nerf anyone?). What is, IMHO, even more worrying is the complete LACK of official response from CCP. How many decent onlines have gone away due to the management loosing sight of what was enjoyed and wanted by those who PAY the bills? SWG is one, remember Earth and Beyond? So lets look at it objectively, CCP thinks this needs to be done, fair enough.. then for FRAPS sake have a little tact to let the players know why and what the overall plan is for the game ongoing? Don't just throw in an adjustment this extensive and expect us to swallow like good little streetwalkers. There is a thing called Customer Relationship Management.. I would respectfully suggest that someone over in Iceland get a book on it and read it.. better yet take a crash course before they wtfpwn the client base. Again, it's not so much the nerf(s) that I'm upset about it's the LACK OF COMMUNICATION from CCP about how this is to fit into the overall game play and what the vision is. For heaven's sake.. 6 pages of posts and not ONE official response from CCP about this obviously divisive issue? Do they want another Petition drive? Do they want to keep and expand their player base? Sadly, from what I've seen and heard.... the powers that be are misinformed or worse yet do not care what the players want, they seem to run on the assumption that "if we put it in and ignore them they will adapt". This may work once and a while.. but eventually there will come a reckoning. Please CCP let us know the why's and how's of these seemingly inane adjustments that have so angered a significant portion of the playerbase? End trans..
Dlardrageth Eve University Ivy League	Posted - 2007.11.06 19:43:00 - [162] So to sum up much of the whine (Duh!) and criticism here, carriers are now prolly useless? I don't think so... but feel free to correct me, I don't fly them, nor have the skill to, nor do plan to acquire it in the near future. And I frankly don't think we'll see many carriers reprocessed or sold for obscenely low prices soon. Because, there are still uses for them, or not? (Sorry if sounding like "STFU of adapt!") One has to admit this looks very much like a carrier nerf, agreed. Hauling performance for carriers will be impeded serverely, agreed. But I think it would be much more rewarding (in getting Dev response) to get into a structured debate how to address the issue (which CCP seems to want to have) with a modification to the supposed nerf. Instead of posting "OMFGhaxxNERF!". Reality is, a lot of the community doesn't care that much about carriers and 0.0 logistics, if at all. Of course, we all cannot make the devs concur to the priorities we see for fixes. They have their own mind about it. But this thread could use a bit more constructive input from the player base, methinks. Unless it's prone to evolve into another whine thread...
Molly Neuro	Posted - 2007.11.06 23:40:00 - [163] Originally by: Dlardrageth So to sum up much of the whine (Duh!) and criticism here, carriers are now prolly useless? I don't think so... but feel free to correct me, I don't fly them, nor have the skill to, nor do plan to acquire it in the near future. The why have you replied to this thread expressing consent for a change when you have absolutely no idea what it means??
Turin Caldari Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.11.07 00:33:00 - [164] Originally by: Fswd Edited by: Fswd on 27/10/2007 12:08:10 Edited by: Fswd on 27/10/2007 12:07:56 Edited by: Fswd on 27/10/2007 12:07:23 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. trolling alts FTL. Get a main you looser. _________________________________
Skraeling Shortbus Caldari The Arrow Project Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.11.07 02:12:00 - [165] Originally by: Aurinkokuningas Originally by: Trask Kilraen I don't mind so much that carriers get nerfed as jump-haulers. BUT. It IS a big deal that ships in the bay can't have their own supplies. It makes carrying fitting and stocked replacment ships MUCH more of a hassle. That is bad. If CCP really wants to nerf the carrier's hauling ability, go for it I guess, but it should still be useful as a CARRIER (e.g. a ship that carries other ships) You need teamwork. Logistics ships bringing ammo, fuel and spare parts. It is good. In other words you want someone whose sole purpose is to be the mmo equivalent of a mule? Love to the Assault Frigate!
Herring Pimpology Free Trade Zone.	Posted - 2007.11.07 03:54:00 - [166] Originally by: Dlardrageth So to sum up much of the whine (Duh!) and criticism here, carriers are now prolly useless? I don't think so... but feel free to correct me, I don't fly them, nor have the skill to, nor do plan to acquire it in the near future. And I frankly don't think we'll see many carriers reprocessed or sold for obscenely low prices soon. Because, there are still uses for them, or not? (Sorry if sounding like "STFU of adapt!") One has to admit this looks very much like a carrier nerf, agreed. Hauling performance for carriers will be impeded serverely, agreed. But I think it would be much more rewarding (in getting Dev response) to get into a structured debate how to address the issue (which CCP seems to want to have) with a modification to the supposed nerf. Instead of posting "OMFGhaxxNERF!". Reality is, a lot of the community doesn't care that much about carriers and 0.0 logistics, if at all. Of course, we all cannot make the devs concur to the priorities we see for fixes. They have their own mind about it. But this thread could use a bit more constructive input from the player base, methinks. Unless it's prone to evolve into another whine thread... Ok if you think people are just going off about this in an irrational and whiny manner, consider the following: 1. What's the motivation behind the nerf? From what little we've heard (and it is little) the devs consider the carrier to be uber. Waay too good at everything it does. Especially hauling. So if I'm getting the gist right from the Devs, it's that logistics in 0.0 is just too damned easy right now with a carrier. It needs to be harder. I disagree heartily. Many carrier pilots disagree. 2. So they inform everyone that they're going to get bent over shortly in the logistics department so that they can FORCE a large majority of the people who absolutely, positively NEED to move items to and from 0.0 with carriers to now start training now for jump freighters. -G.A.Y.- Unnecessary timesink, unnecessary nerf, just unnecessary plain and simple. 3. We need a solid role of what they want the carrier to be, and no BS. Just say this is the role of a carrier, no, we won't be changing it a year or two down the road. Quit ***** with people's training time. Change happens, but when you waste months and/or years of time that people could have used to train for another ship/shipclass/race entirely, just because of radical design changes that someone came up with after too many beers, that is another thing I would call absolutely, positively and in all ways completely . If I knew that this was what the dev team had had in mind for carriers, I wouldn't have started training for them. Yeah kind of whiny, but not as bad as it might be. God I hate nerfs. Nerfs exist because people didn't think things through when they first got designed, and didn't play around with them enough. CCP - please stop with the nerfing and boost something already.*
Gah'khaz Caldari	Posted - 2007.11.07 04:40:00 - [167] Edited by: Gah''khaz on 07/11/2007 04:41:57 I remember when this game was fun and exciting.. about the time i started playing and 6 months after.. been downhill all the way from there on out... eve is reduced to instamelting blobs and mighty swings of nerfbat in dark rooms... i suggest a new thread -> alternatives to Eve, uncorrupted games where you can play and have fun /edit for readability
Dlardrageth Eve University Ivy League	Posted - 2007.11.07 06:27:00 - [168] Originally by: Molly Neuro The why have you replied to this thread expressing consent for a change when you have absolutely no idea what it means?? 1. You failed at reading 101. But nice job snipping away the last part of the paragraph you quote. Strawman raised... 2. Asking for a more structured and factual debate doesn't imply "consent" of any type. Reality is the devs will nerf or not nerf, no matter if I consent or not. Don't know about you, though, because... 3. Post with your main or STFU, will you? Nerf Alts... 4. In fact I'm less than thrilled by the "rebalancing" performance of CCP. Wrong priorities to a large extent IMHO. But unless more people post like Herring a bit further up the thread, all points made will be ignored. I don't think the devs will bother reading up on whining, would any of us in their place? I doubt it. Thus a mere waste of bandwidth.
Zanarkand Gallente Enterprise Estonia Cult of War	Posted - 2007.11.07 06:41:00 - [169] Originally by: Viqer Fell Ships inside a carriers ship maintenance bay can no longer have cargo in them. VERY GOOD
Setana Manoro Gallente Firefly Inc.	Posted - 2007.11.07 06:56:00 - [170] Originally by: Race Rogers 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! You should post about stuff like this when you understand what a Carrier is, and how it was used untill now. Failgeddon wrecks CCP for XXX annoyed customers !

Baron Primus	Posted - 2007.11.07 08:12:00 - [171] Originally by: Deanna Nuchi No cargo = no ammo in the ships.. Its an Amarr boost!!! Attaboy. Look at the silver lining! Originally by: SoftRevolution WoW is computer AIDS.
Chrysalis D'lilth	Posted - 2007.11.07 08:30:00 - [172] I've not flown a carrier in a while, but i'm not sure what this actually achieves. Did they prevent you fitting those jump portal generators to frigates like the griffon? That was always the best way to compress minerals - and unless that got nerfed already, i don't see how this achieves anything.... except mean you can't put spare ammo/cap charges in your ships.
Kerfira	Posted - 2007.11.07 08:46:00 - [173] Originally by: Herring So if I'm getting the gist right from the Devs, it's that logistics in 0.0 is just too damned easy right now with a carrier. It needs to be harder. I disagree heartily. Many carrier pilots disagree. Hauling stuff in 0.0 IS to damn easy! This has a lot of bad effects (for the game): 1. It is way to easy for alliances to claim wast amounts of space, and not using most of it. This means less space (none?) for smaller alliances. 2. 0.0 in essence has NO industry! Mostly nobody mines there, nobody produces there and nobody trades there. There may be exceptions, but that's the general rule. The reason is that it's way to easy to import stuff from high-sec. This means that the intention of 0.0 to contain player-run empires is nowhere near being true. It's just a barren warzone. 3. It is no longer an achievement to do anything in 0.0. In days past, if you put up an outpost, or constructed a cap or supercap, it was something that was felt as an achievement by all involved. Now it's done by just one or a couple of people. This cheapens the EVE experience. All players always wants things the 'easy' way, or at least they think they do (if they think at all), but in fact the games people enjoy most are the ones that are HARD and presents a challenge. If you do well in a hard game, you can feel that you've actually done something well, while doing well in an easy game is just meh... So, I fully support this nerf (as long as they find a way to let us keep ammo/etc in our combat ships), just as I support the mineral compression nerf and the freighter mass nerf (actually they should completely prohibit freighters to use jump bridges). Why, because its good for the GAME! ...and yes, I DO fly a carrier! 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.
Malarki X Caldari Ad Astra Vexillum Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2007.11.07 08:55:00 - [174] Meh ... dont realy care TBH. Ammo can be put into cargo hold or alliance bays. As long as they dont touch my drones and fighters - dont care
Grishnarg	Posted - 2007.11.07 13:49:00 - [175] I just wanna say; BUHUU!! Or no I don't, coz that would be trolling. What i do wanna say is that if you rely on a ship doing something it's not intented to do, maybe your operation has grown bigger than it really should be. Goods should be moved with haulers/freighters. Simple as that. It would be really weird if a MiG could move around concrete bags for runway repairs for the siberian base where it belongs. An extreme example, but this is the argument here. Fight in fighting ships, move stuff in movers. If I have to make a wild quess; your operations in low or 0.0 started by getting a single POS up and running. You discover you benefit quite well from having it running, so you make more POS, and more, and more... But to be able to sustain all the POS'es you need a ship to transport required items EASILY. WOW (and not the game) a carrier!! This way you can put up even more POS'es, and the result is that u actually are able to run more than you should be able to, and able to control more space than you should. If the opposite would be the result; that you can not keep it all running, this WILL mean that other corps/alliances can claim the areas u cannot, and therefore more ppl in area, and more fun!
Molly Neuro	Posted - 2007.11.07 14:15:00 - [176] Originally by: Molly Neuro The why have you replied to this thread expressing consent for a change when you have absolutely no idea what it means?? Originally by: Dlardrageth 1. You failed at reading 101. But nice job snipping away the last part of the paragraph you quote. Strawman raised... No doubt you passed - feel free to go here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man where you can read and understand what a strawman is. My question to you is not a strawman and has not been answered. Originally by: Dlardrageth 2. Asking for a more structured and factual debate doesn't imply "consent" of any type. Reality is the devs will nerf or not nerf, no matter if I consent or not. Don't know about you, though, because... This "carriers are now prolly useless? I don't think so." implies consent. Originally by: Dlardrageth 3. Post with your main or STFU, will you? Nerf Alts... Brilliant argument - just stunning - except this is my main, look people up in game before you accuse them of being an alt. BTW since you raised logical fallacies (strawman), this is a great example of an ad hominem attack. Originally by: Dlardrageth 4. In fact I'm less than thrilled by the "rebalancing" performance of CCP. Wrong priorities to a large extent IMHO. But unless more people post like Herring a bit further up the thread, all points made will be ignored. I don't think the devs will bother reading up on whining, would any of us in their place? I doubt it. Thus a mere waste of bandwidth. They probably don't like reading whine threads - I don't believe this is one. Having said that they probably don't like reading "stop whining" posts either, leaving yours just as ignored.
Tananda Vaakaja	Posted - 2007.11.08 01:59:00 - [177] still no response.. interesting
Lrrp Minmatar Gallente Mercantile Exchange Coalition Of Empires	Posted - 2007.11.08 16:52:00 - [178] My 2 cents. While at one time I cinsidered training up for carriers (back when you could use them in lvl 4 missions), I held off. Then I thought perhaps I'd build my own POS somewhere and use a carrier to get fuel to it. That was until I started reading this latest nerf. So here's the big question. What should I train up for? What are CCP's plan for changes 6 months from now? 12 months from now? Will jump freighters be nerfed because of some yet unforeseen exploit? Will Rorquals get setback on bonus's because they give unfair advantage to the isk farmers? What is happening is there is no longer any surety for a desired item that when trained for, it will be useful for any appreciable length of time. Look at what happened to intidictors, Torps and Sensor dampners. If CCP wants a game for their own personal playing pleasure, funded by a player base they really care nothing about, then be forewarned. Another game will come on the market with as much content as Eve and devs that understand that the game is for the players....not visa versa. A good indication that CCP does take it's player base for granted is the absolutely total lack of response in threads such as this. CCP should have customer relations executives whose sole function is interacting in such threads as this. If I ran my business like CCP does here, I'd of been out of business years ago. Warning bells are going off in a number of threads yet I see zip zero nada response by the owners of the game. Open your eyes CCP.
Jakus Cemendur Caldari Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2007.11.08 16:58:00 - [179] Edited by: Jakus Cemendur on 08/11/2007 16:59:34 Check the other carrier thread(alright, there are a few but the one with gold bars round it), devs have been responding there. LINKY!
Haniblecter Teg F.R.E.E. Explorer Atrum Tempestas Foedus	Posted - 2007.11.08 17:32:00 - [180] EVE isnt wow. To that matter, having ever increasingly powerful ships isnt necessarily EVE's style. Every ship has a place, and even a day old pilot, together with a few others, should take down almost every ship, in keeping with EVE's philosphy (this excepts the titan and MoM, but we can all make exceptions for super caps). In addition, ships have roles. No ship can be perfect for everything. Carriers, have become just another tier beyond BS. They dont fill their role as an asset to a fleet, but become the fleet itself. In addition, they can kill inties, BS's, or other caps with their varying sizes of drones. They can haul stuff to 00. AND, they can remote rep and gang boost their mates and lend firepower (their orginal, and only, intended use) So people, the carriers have gotten out of CCPs control. They dont want pilots to feel compelled to train for carriers to be useful. they also dont want EVE to turn into a cap fest...which it WILL if they dont nerf these POSs. So, get bent you 'invested' carriers pilots. If EVE bends for your whines, then EVE gets broke, with every pilot needing to get into a carrier to become effective. At that point, EVE loses the ability to say that even a day old pilot can be of use. ----------------- Friends Forever Kill. BoB. Dead.

RC Denton	Posted - 2007.11.08 18:06:00 - [181] Originally by: Haniblecter Teg EVE isnt wow. To that matter, having ever increasingly powerful ships isnt necessarily EVE's style. Every ship has a place, and even a day old pilot, together with a few others, should take down almost every ship, in keeping with EVE's philosphy (this excepts the titan and MoM, but we can all make exceptions for super caps). In addition, ships have roles. No ship can be perfect for everything. Carriers, have become just another tier beyond BS. They dont fill their role as an asset to a fleet, but become the fleet itself. In addition, they can kill inties, BS's, or other caps with their varying sizes of drones. They can haul stuff to 00. AND, they can remote rep and gang boost their mates and lend firepower (their orginal, and only, intended use) So people, the carriers have gotten out of CCPs control. They dont want pilots to feel compelled to train for carriers to be useful. they also dont want EVE to turn into a cap fest...which it WILL if they dont nerf these POSs. So, get bent you 'invested' carriers pilots. If EVE bends for your whines, then EVE gets broke, with every pilot needing to get into a carrier to become effective. At that point, EVE loses the ability to say that even a day old pilot can be of use. The only cap ships a carrier could kill would be a freighter or a rorqual and you could pretty much do the same in a battlecruiser given enough time. I keep seeing people who are defenders of the cap nerf call carriers some sort of solo pwnmobile. With it's plethora of drones a carrier can pretty much go 1:1 with any subcap ship type but the drones are vulnerable to being destroyed. If I have a t2 fit BC and I engage a carrier and kill 3 of the fighters before blowing up then from an economic perspective I've done far more damage to the carrier pilot than they have done to me. Carriers can be damped, bumped, swarmed, neutted, etc. They are far from invulnerable and given the outlay in isk for a carrier it should take about 10 BSs to take one down.
Kirren D'marr	Posted - 2007.11.08 20:42:00 - [182] Originally by: Tananda Vaakaja What is rather upsetting here is not just the carrier nerf (let's not forget it's ONE ship among several others that are getting gelded.. interceptor nerf anyone?). What is, IMHO, even more worrying is the complete LACK of official response from CCP. How many decent onlines have gone away due to the management loosing sight of what was enjoyed and wanted by those who PAY the bills? SWG is one, remember Earth and Beyond? So lets look at it objectively, CCP thinks this needs to be done, fair enough.. then for FRAPS sake have a little tact to let the players know why and what the overall plan is for the game ongoing? Don't just throw in an adjustment this extensive and expect us to swallow like good little streetwalkers. There is a thing called Customer Relationship Management.. I would respectfully suggest that someone over in Iceland get a book on it and read it.. better yet take a crash course before they wtfpwn the client base. Again, it's not so much the nerf(s) that I'm upset about it's the LACK OF COMMUNICATION from CCP about how this is to fit into the overall game play and what the vision is. For heaven's sake.. 6 pages of posts and not ONE official response from CCP about this obviously divisive issue? Do they want another Petition drive? Do they want to keep and expand their player base? Sadly, from what I've seen and heard.... the powers that be are misinformed or worse yet do not care what the players want, they seem to run on the assumption that "if we put it in and ignore them they will adapt". This may work once and a while.. but eventually there will come a reckoning. Please CCP let us know the why's and how's of these seemingly inane adjustments that have so angered a significant portion of the playerbase? End trans.. Sorry, I have to correct some history here. Earth and Beyond was doomed from the day it launched, and not because of dev attention, but because EA Games never intended it to succeed. When EA acquired Westwood studios for their Command & Conquer license, they were contractually obligated to launch EnB and maintain it for two years. EA really did not want to get involved with an MMO at the time, but considered it part of the price for C&C. However, "maintaining" EnB apparently did not require them to do any advertising or promoting for the game, nor did it prevent them from stripping nearly all the Westwood personnel from the project and leaving a bare handful of people to support the entire game and its community. When the two years were up, EA pulled the plug, contract fulfilled. EnB failed because EA games wanted it to, simple as that. That having been said, I agree with your points, game companies like CCP need to keep open and honest communication with their customers to stay in business. However, for anyone claiming that what CCP has done to EVE is the same as what SOE did to SWG, that's blowing things way out of proportion. These changes in EVE are nothing near the magnitude of what happened with SWG where the entire mechanics of the game were gutted and replaced practically overnight with only two weeks warning. Online games change, ideally with small adjustments here and there rather than massive overhauls, that's their nature. I'm not taking a position one way or the other on this carrier issue atm, I don't fly them and can't offer an informed opinion. The fact is, there will be changes, some good and some bad. If CCP wants to survive those changes, they need to keep their customers informed.


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