| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 96 post(s) |
Elmicker
Black Sea Industries
Cult of War
   |
Posted - 2007.11.07 22:56:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Elmicker on 07/11/2007 22:56:25
 Originally by: CCP Nozh
the hauling carriers were over the top.
In what way? Fuelling POSes with carriers takes literally hundreds of man hours of work, and using carriers to haul ships and modules is exactly within their role.
Nerfing carrier logistics will simply make people turn to dreadnoughts, which can do exactly the same job.
|
Elmicker
Black Sea Industries
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.07 23:16:00 -
[2]
But it's not overpowered...
If you honestly think that, you've never had to keep a POS chain alive relying solely on carriers. There seems to be a distinct lack of actual carrier experience behind the nerfs. First we're told that their dps output is overpowered (not true), then we're told their remote-rep capability is overpowered (not true except 1 specific situation) and now we're told that their logistical capbilities are also overpowered. Admittedly, we were only told this *******s through an absolute collapse in communication (Hi Zulupark!), but it showed the underlying reasoning behind it. It took a 110 page thread to get CCP to admit that it was not the individual mechanics that were overpowered, but their use in a pure carrier blob. Again, CCP missed the point in that it was the blob that was the problem, not the carriers. Nerfing an individual ship's capabilities to make up for flaws in the game's mechanics should not be a valid design strategy.
Carriers should still be able to do logistics in the same capacity they can now, but they should be nowhere near as useful as the jump freighters. This would allow jump freighters to take over the supply lines and the POSes, leaving carriers to do their job of combat logistical support - providing new ships (with alternate fits on board) to combat zones.
|
Elmicker
Black Sea Industries
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.08 01:10:00 -
[3]
Originally by: CCP Nozh
There will be a gap, where you'll be forced to fall back to old fashioned freighter runs
Or if you've got half an ounce of sense; expanded dreadnoughts. Slightly less efficient than a carrier, but you'll already have a bunch of pilots and the ship wont cost you 8bil.
Quote:
Jump Freighters aren't supposed to be used to ferry ships around, that's what carriers are for, and they'll become much better at it after the changes (I haven't heard any praises for that btw).
You havent heard any praises because in nerfing the ability to carry cargo, you've also put a massive dent in the capability to carry ships. There's no point to a carrier's SMA if you can't haul in alternate fits alongside the ship. The only viable way to haul in alternate fits is to carry them in the cargohold of the ship you intend them to be used in.
Quote:
Second of all again? Yeah, don't undock your freighter when you've got a 10 BS enemy gang outside your station. Use scouts.
It doesn't have to be BSes. A single cloaked alt could provide the cyno to drop in sufficient capitals (or even BOBS) to kill it before anything could be done. What use are scouts then?
Quote:
Dampeners were overpowered.
Dampeners in themselves were not overpowered. They were simply overpowered in that they could be fitted to any ship for approximately the same level of effectiveness. In nerfing them and not providing an equivalent boost to the "specialised" (lol) dampening ships, you've given the gallente EW ships a ridiculous nerf for no good reason.
As for the other script modules "faring much better", i'd quite like to see how you expect people to fit comparable fleet fits post-nerf. The combined sniping, TD and damp nerf is simply a buff to nanoships. You've nerfed the 3 most effective counters.
|
Elmicker
Black Sea Industries
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.08 01:14:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Elmicker on 08/11/2007 01:14:07
Originally by: ChimeraRouge
Carriers != Haulers
Yes, carriers are multirole support ships. Which is exactly why they should maintain their hauling capability, just at an inferior level to the dedicated hauling ships.
|
Elmicker
Black Sea Industries
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.08 01:25:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Max Teranous
Is that 2.8 billion build cost, or invention & build cost?
I'm fairly sure that's the ideal ME0 build cost. Most decryptors will (AFAIK - i'm not an inventor), give a hefty penalty to ME, doubling the build cost. throw in the invention costs and the requisite mark up and you're nearing the 8B figure that's being thrown around.
|
Elmicker
Black Sea Industries
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.08 11:52:00 -
[6]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
Just as a random test, I put into my Thanatos on SISI:
300 425mm Railgun II (20m3)
300 Sensor Booster II (5m3)
88 Ogre II (25m3)
And 40 other completely random items (including armor hardeners, missile launchers and some ammo)
So where did you store your fuel?
|
Elmicker
Black Sea Industries
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.08 12:06:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Elmicker on 08/11/2007 12:06:53
Originally by: Ozstar
in his cargo bay?
At a pinch you'll squeeze 3 jumps @ 4/4 skills into a thanatos' cargo bay. That's not enough. Most logistics routes are 2-3 jumps in each direction. That leaves you enough for the trip there and an emergency jump out, with nothing spare for replacement ozone or emergency stront. You'd need a second ship there to carry your fuel, or you'll need to eat into your corp hangar, which will already have to be filled with your new 4k m3 capital modules and your corpmates' modules. Regardless of the extra time you have to spend sorting modules and doling them out when people pull a ship, you'll likely need a fuel ship alongisde any carrier logistics op. This'll probably end up being a jump freighter, which just about defeats the point.
Doubling or tripling the carrier cargohold and you'll get away with it, but then you may as well just use an expanded archon for logistics.
|
Elmicker
Black Sea Industries
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.08 12:24:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Di Jiensai
you have 20k in corp bay i think.
10k, unless its been increased on sisi.
Quote:
- bring 3 weapons, 1 siege module, one captial armor rep withyour dread. + loads of standard items in normal cargo.
Since when do dreadnoughts have corp hangar bays?
Quote:
- bring 5 drone control units in your carrier, or have 2 fitted and 3 + 2 capital reppers in corp bay.
Which leaves you no room for spare modules for the ships in your SMA (effectively making your sma useless), and limits your range in terms of fuel.
Quote:
i agree that its probably not as easy as before, but saying that it is impossible is plain wrong.
It's not impossible, but they're severely limiting one of the carrier's primary roles - long range logistical support, for no good reason.
|
Elmicker
Black Sea Industries
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.08 19:53:00 -
[9]
Originally by: CCP Nozh
to encourage freight runs
Expanded dreadnoughts. Expanded Rorquals. Titans. All of these will come before even considering running a freighter through 0.0.
Quote:
and make moving stuff in mass quantities more challenging.
...
Why?
Logistics should be EASY. People are far more willing to go out and lose ships (you know, play the game), if they know they can have a replacement cooking the second they come back. Adding more work hinders this and will put a damper on 0.0 large-ship gang combat.
|
Elmicker
Black Sea Industries
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.08 20:18:00 -
[10]
Originally by: CCP Nozh
Yeah, you can still use deadnoughts or expanded rorquals, however you completely sacrifice your fit and you're nowhere close to being as effective.
So apply the same logic to carriers - allow them to continue their logistics role at the expense of their combat capabilities. Nerfs are simply the neanderthal's way of dealing with a problem.
Quote:
It's our opinion that logistics have become too easy with "hauling carriers",
Out of those who share "our opinion", how many of you have ever dealt with large-scale (or hell, even small-scale) carrier logistics for corps and alliances?
Quote:
and I'm pretty sure the game would become even more fun and intense if people wouldn't always have that replacement cooking and the stakes where a bit higher(this is just my opinion, not necessarily where we're going).
Aside from being more wrong than you can realise, the stakes are exactly the same. The ship still costs the same amount for the pilot. All you're doing is putting more time into the boring, useless bits of the game and directing it away from EVE itself.
|
Elmicker
Black Sea Industries
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.08 21:38:00 -
[11]
I'd really appreciate an answer to my earlier question,
namely;
Why have you gone for an absolute nerf with carrier logistics? You have entirely removed their ability. This is meant to be a sandbox, and the recent dev blogs displayed this (to an extent). The aim was (supposedly) to allow the carrier to still perform as a multi-role support platform, but not to perform all its roles at once. So why, after all the shenanigans surrounding the blogs, have you again decided for an absolute nerf after the response you got to your proposed absolute fighter nerf?
(also. Cheers for answering all the questions. You've gone a long way to alleviating a lot of concerns with regards to the upcoming patches. The responses and feedback gained in this thread have basically shat all over previous dev blogs + Q&As, good job.)
|
Elmicker
Black Sea Industries
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.08 21:42:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Cailais
The curse is on the edge of being pretty munch unflyable vs its peer group and Im now just using my pilgrim as a cloaking hauler - please help!!!
Hahah, at least the curse's racial EW still works. Spare a thought for the arazu and lachesis, subject to a nerf aimed at all other ships, with no accompanying buff to make up for it.
|
Elmicker
Black Sea Industries
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.08 22:24:00 -
[13]
Originally by: CCP Nozh
Because we've never considered the hauling capability of carriers an intended role
So why has it survived dozens of patches, major expansions and alterations only to be removed entirely for no reason other than "We think it makes logistics too easy" and "we never liked it anyway". Why not 2 years ago when all the bugs with the infinite hauling tricks were fixed? Why not 6 months ago when sovereignty was overhauled? Why suddenly now with no alternatives and in total opposition to your stated direction of selectable flexibility?
Why force it. It's been stated with reference to another matter in this thread that you don't want to force players into anything. Just give haulers a big volume increase. That way, if i want to use my carrier as a ridiculously innefficient hauler over the intended jump freighter, i can - just like there's nothing stopping me using an expanded BS over an iteron 5.
Quote:
I've always wanted carriers to be a bit more logistic focused but not as haulers, but rather as remote repairers etc., with spare ships and modules for the fleet.
Well, the cargo nerf isnt going to help much there, is it? Combined with the capital mod size increase, your corp hangar will now be perpetually full of fuel and alternate fits (now a requisite). Without the ability to carry mods inside the ships, you simply will not be able to bring alternate fits to a fight. Your SMA becomes pretty much useless. And as for remote repping? Well. The sensor booster nerf, no, wait, sorry, it's not a nerf. The introduction of scripts to sensor boosters should really help with remote repping .
|
Elmicker
Black Sea Industries
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.08 22:40:00 -
[14]
Originally by: I SoStoned
You're off your bloody rocker.
And you're being needlessly obtuse.
Take a rifter versus a craptor or an ares. The rifter would probably win either fight without breaking a sweat. Admittedly that's the worst interceptors against the best frigate, but the point still stands. the crap ceptors needed a boost, and the dictors needed to be edged away from their role as oversized interceptors.
|
Elmicker
Black Sea Industries
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.08 22:50:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Goumindong
The ares is fantastic now
That's why i said they "needed" a boost  . My acceleration control 5 and zor's hyperlink are drooling.
|
Elmicker
Black Sea Industries
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.09 16:44:00 -
[16]
Edited by: Elmicker on 09/11/2007 16:47:54
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
You can still take a BS down to 11km locking range and 70 sec locking time (on a command ship) with a Lachesis or Arazu. I think that's pretty fine.
Emphasis added on the important bit. A rook can comfortably jam 2-3 BSes with very few breaks. The celestis, arazu and lachesis, once this nerf comes into play, have to focus all their EW capability onto a single target to take them out of a close-mid range fight. That's hardly balanced for the racial EW of the close-range race.
|
Elmicker
Black Sea Industries
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.09 16:52:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Polinus
But a BS can easily defend itself against even several ECm ships, just using an ECCM. An Hyperion with an ECCm for example, very high sensor strenght.
The exact same can be said for a hyperion with a sensor booster, loading whichever script is more needed. The arazu and lachesis now serve no role other than long-range warp scrambling. You may as well bring a keres for dampening. Or hell, even a maulus. They all get the same bonus. It was useful pre-nerf because you could lock down any ship with 2 damps, to the 3 an unbonused ship would have to use. Now you have to use 4 to lock down a single ship, and even then you've not knocked him below web range.
|
Elmicker
Black Sea Industries
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.09 17:23:00 -
[18]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
The Hactor (lol) is going to have severe drawbacks while scrambling, so I think that's a fair trade-off.
Originally by: CCP Mindstar
Just to confirm - The focused warp disruption script does indeed remove all of the drawbacks of the warp disruption field generator when it is loaded.
|
Elmicker
Black Sea Industries
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.11 04:22:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Raketefrau
But timing-wise, will the carrier cargo nerf be hitting before the jump freighters are introduced?
Technically, no. They're both being introduced with the same patch, however, jump freighters are T2. They will take several MONTHS to invent and build, at a simply staggering cost (estimates ranging into the 7-8b region). There is also a huge lack of freighter pilots with the required jump skills, so it will take time to transition the duties of the experienced carrier logistics pilots to the freighter pilots training jump skills.
|
| |
|