EVE Search - CCP, Where are you going wiith all of these changes?

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

CCP, Where are you going wiith all of these changes?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 24 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 96 post(s)
TheDevilsJury GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.08 05:59:00 - [151] Originally by: CCP Nozh Originally by: Rells Another changes I object to are The speed nerfs to the interdictors (they are made of paper and primary target man). The sabre was a bit powerful but the answer was to fix the flycatcher (reduce its weight by 30%) and other interdictors, not nerf them all. As for scripts, I wouldnt care if the script loaded attributes for the modules was the same as the current values. The fact is that even with a script loaded, damps have been hit with a 40% nerf and other script modules havent fared much better. Well I started out only looking at the sabre, but realized quickly that the speed difference between the interdictors wasn't that great. A -25% speed reduction to all of them brought them a bit closer together and slowed them down a bit. Yes, the speed difference between interdictors is only 10 m/s or so. But what happens is you fill out the lowslots with speed mods and put on a MWD which then takes into account the ship's mass. Flycatcher has both the least lowslots and the highest mass, so when MWDing it goes far slower than a lower-mass Sabre assuming a similar fitting. Of course it makes up for that in being able to fit more tackling/tanking gear in the mids, but interdictors live and die by their speed. If you want to balance out the speeds of all interdictors, look at their speed after MWDs and adjusting the mass will do that. A 25% nerf accross the board will keep the respective differences in speed exactly the same.
Dr Paithos Minmatar Republic Deep Space Institute	Posted - 2007.11.08 06:08:00 - [152] Originally by: TheDevilsJury Originally by: CCP Nozh Originally by: Rells Another changes I object to are The speed nerfs to the interdictors (they are made of paper and primary target man). The sabre was a bit powerful but the answer was to fix the flycatcher (reduce its weight by 30%) and other interdictors, not nerf them all. As for scripts, I wouldnt care if the script loaded attributes for the modules was the same as the current values. The fact is that even with a script loaded, damps have been hit with a 40% nerf and other script modules havent fared much better. Well I started out only looking at the sabre, but realized quickly that the speed difference between the interdictors wasn't that great. A -25% speed reduction to all of them brought them a bit closer together and slowed them down a bit. Yes, the speed difference between interdictors is only 10 m/s or so. But what happens is you fill out the lowslots with speed mods and put on a MWD which then takes into account the ship's mass. Flycatcher has both the least lowslots and the highest mass, so when MWDing it goes far slower than a lower-mass Sabre assuming a similar fitting. Of course it makes up for that in being able to fit more tackling/tanking gear in the mids, but interdictors live and die by their speed. If you want to balance out the speeds of all interdictors, look at their speed after MWDs and adjusting the mass will do that. A 25% nerf accross the board will keep the respective differences in speed exactly the same. Look at the speed of the Manticore vs the other races Stealth Bombers, too. The others with speedfits do about 2500m/s. The manti struggles to break 1k/sec. Several caldari ships need a mass tweak to be competitive, not just the flycatcher. Shieldtanking is hard enough bleh Originally by: RedFall How dare you try to argue my point with your so called "evidence". I don't need any, I have truthiness on my side.
Moraguth Amarr Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.11.08 06:10:00 - [153] To everyone complaining about the interdictor nerfs.... I spent about 4 hours last weekend playing around with all the dictors (besides flycatcher, it's hopeless for speed) to see which ones gave the best results and under what conditions. I'll save you the details. Suprise ending though, Eris was the fastest dictor by about 2-3% AND it had all those mids to mess with people more (compared to the heretic and the sabre). Oh, and btw... I completely hate the dictor nerf. I love my heretic and wouldn't trade it for the world (cause i'm not a min/maxer i guess). I lose them so often though, i wish it had the ability to at least tank an interceptor or an assault frig long enough for the cavalry to arrive. :( good game
Druadan Gallente Aristotle Enterprises Ethereal Dawn	Posted - 2007.11.08 06:19:00 - [154] Edited by: Druadan on 08/11/2007 06:20:19 Originally by: Ket Halpak A thought I had was to allow ships inside carriers to carry cargo, but cargo expanders and skills dont take affect, just like when someone isnt piloting a ship. I could get about 17km3 into my mamoth while flying it, but if I were to fully load it in station, swap to a different ship and then open the mamoths cargo hold, it would appear to be overloaded (ie 17km3/5900m3 of cargo space used). If you stopped people from being able to load over expanded ships into a carrier, it would vastly reduce the carriers cargo hauling ability, but still provide some sort of logistics during the gap time. I havent done the maths (im supposed to be working atm :) ), but with the newly expanded cargo holds, you would only be able to haul about 20km3 with a carrier. Oh and being able to fit battleships inside a carrier 4tw! Agreed. Getting rid of the ability of carriers to hold ships with cargo in their holds is a very ham-fisted way of pushing this whole ''carriers != haulers'' thing on us. I agree that jump freighters need to take the bulk of logistics work, but imposing this ridiculous differentiation between charges and regular items is nonsensical and damaging. If you made it so ships in ship maintenance bays are essentially piloted by skill-less pilots, then all modules would be offline, and at most you would have three rigs active, significantly reducing the ability of the carrier to haul. The fact is that when a carrier brings ships to the frontline, those ships should be able to have ammo, other charges, and alternative module fittings in them, to give their pilot-to-be the freedom to refit the ship at the carrier. EVE's freedom and catering for versatility is one of its greatest aspects, and putting limits on reason just to force people out of a shiptype and into another is crazy talk. Especially when the production costs are so prohibitive. A ship in a ship maintenance bay is as it is in space, but unpiloted, so offlining modules (no skills present if it's unpiloted) is both sensible and effective in working towards limiting the carrier's ability to haul. If you force carriers out of being able to haul ships with items in the hold, simply because of this new mantra of ''carriers != haulers'', then you have to stop Badgers from being able to fit dampeners, for one. Haulers != EWAR platforms, right? -Dru Screw you, Jacques.
Necrologic Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2007.11.08 06:36:00 - [155] Quote: If you force carriers out of being able to haul ships with items in the hold, simply because of this new mantra of ''carriers != haulers'', then you have to stop Badgers from being able to fit dampeners, for one. Haulers != EWAR platforms, right? This is a terrible argument. Badgers can equip ewar but make terrible ewar platforms the same way every ship can put stuff in its cargo hold without it being a good hauler. The carrier is the exception to this. _____________________ In the arena of logic I fight unarmed.
Druadan Gallente Aristotle Enterprises Ethereal Dawn	Posted - 2007.11.08 06:41:00 - [156] Originally by: Necrologic Quote: If you force carriers out of being able to haul ships with items in the hold, simply because of this new mantra of ''carriers != haulers'', then you have to stop Badgers from being able to fit dampeners, for one. Haulers != EWAR platforms, right? This is a terrible argument. Badgers can equip ewar but make terrible ewar platforms the same way every ship can put stuff in its cargo hold without it being a good hauler. The carrier is the exception to this. I'm not saying keep the carrier the way it is. I'm saying what I actually said in my post, believe it or not. Lessen the hauling ability so it isn't uber, without just totally removing it. How would that be an exception. Screw you, Jacques.
Baynex Amarr Lasciate Ogne Speranza	Posted - 2007.11.08 07:17:00 - [157] one question...the addition of drone bandwidth will cause many drone boats to switch from heavies or heavy/med/light drone waves to purely medium sized drones. Tech 2 medium drones are already the same or higher price than T2 heavies, and now that we can't rep their shields by bringing them back into our bays we'll loose even more of them. So i ask, do you have any plans to keep me from spending every last iskie in my wallet on medium drones?
Spenz Gallente Dark Knights of Deneb Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2007.11.08 07:32:00 - [158] It appears CCP refuses to make anymore comments about drones. They just nerf the drone-boats, lose all focus as to what they actually are (ccp: omgz drone boats are boosted you can now launch more ewar drones whoopee) and are just going to leave it at that. Out of all the drone threads, only one got a response, and it was basically a CCP guy coming in to say "we aren't changing it because we are smarter than you goodbye". I feel as if CCP are treating drones and their users like some invention by Ron Popeil. "Just set it and forget it". If I had an Alt I would probably post with it...
Jenea Gallente The Copernicus Institute	Posted - 2007.11.08 07:39:00 - [159] Originally by: Spenz It appears CCP refuses to make anymore comments about drones. They just nerf the drone-boats, lose all focus as to what they actually are (ccp: omgz drone boats are boosted you can now launch more ewar drones whoopee) and are just going to leave it at that. Out of all the drone threads, only one got a response, and it was basically a CCP guy coming in to say "we aren't changing it because we are smarter than you goodbye". I feel as if CCP are treating drones and their users like some invention by Ron Popeil. "Just set it and forget it". I wasn't particularly impressed with that CCP post either.
Kuolematon Space Perverts and Forum Warriors United Cult of War	Posted - 2007.11.08 07:49:00 - [160] Originally by: CCP Nozh 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). Like I said before the carriers ship maintenance bay has doubled in size, battleships have be reduced in volume by 50%, and other ship classes have also been adjusted slightly. Player: "Yay for upped ship maintance bay!" CCP: "Yeah, oh hey by the way, I nerffed your ability to CARRY STUFF IN YOUR CARGO HOLD" Player: "Umh, why the freck?!" CCP: "Jump Freighters, baby, JUMP FREIGHTERS!" does drunken Oveur dance Sure, nerf ability to put haulers there but don't remove ability to have CARGO in other ships. People perhaps wants to carry extra modules to "front lines" (of BoB vs. RFC gloorious and oh-so-beatiful eternal-eve-wrecking-war) and us carrier biatches want to do that in one jump rather than n+1 jumps to get EVERYTHING there. Remember, Corp hangar is ONLY 10k .. yay for that? Oh, BATTLESTAR GALACTICA!! Ahahahahaahha repsroflcopterwhat*****ever It's great being Amarr isn't it.

Necrologic Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2007.11.08 08:18:00 - [161] Originally by: Druadan Originally by: Necrologic Quote: If you force carriers out of being able to haul ships with items in the hold, simply because of this new mantra of ''carriers != haulers'', then you have to stop Badgers from being able to fit dampeners, for one. Haulers != EWAR platforms, right? This is a terrible argument. Badgers can equip ewar but make terrible ewar platforms the same way every ship can put stuff in its cargo hold without it being a good hauler. The carrier is the exception to this. I'm not saying keep the carrier the way it is. I'm saying what I actually said in my post, believe it or not. Lessen the hauling ability so it isn't uber, without just totally removing it. How would that be an exception. I am not arguing with or commenting on the core of your post, i'm just saying the analogy your threw in at the end for effect was a faulty one. _____________________ In the arena of logic I fight unarmed.
Laechyd Eldgorn Caldari Karjala Inc. Onnenpyora	Posted - 2007.11.08 08:34:00 - [162] Originally by: Dr Paithos Originally by: TheDevilsJury Originally by: CCP Nozh Originally by: Rells stuff stuff Look at the speed of the Manticore vs the other races Stealth Bombers, too. The others with speedfits do about 2500m/s. The manti struggles to break 1k/sec. Several caldari ships need a mass tweak to be competitive, not just the flycatcher. Shieldtanking is hard enough bleh I kind of agree here. Reducing speed of all dictors isn't answer. Or all ships. Especially caldari suffer from having least low slots, high mass and inertia plus low capacitor. You can never fit effective caldari ship which goes at decent speed and uses capacitor based weapons. I can't talk about ships of other races really. But reducing all ship speeds just generally makes caldari ones even slower. It's especially bad for ships which can't really tank a ** except by going at high speed, meaning interdictors, cruisers (at some cases) and other small ships. Just to evaluate problems with flycatcher i give an example fit: 1xbubble 3xrails 4xrocket launchers 1xmwd 1xscram 1xweb 1xsensorbooster/damp 1xmed extender 1xoverdrive this kinda thing goes around 3000-4000m/s depending on gang bonuses. It's slower to warp than many cruisers. Many cruisers also go much faster. Some cruisers have almost same signature radius. You can't fit normal missile launchers because there's not enough grid. You can fit like 3-4 normal launchers with mwd and bubble. Even then about everything chews you apart. Because sabre uses projectiles it uses no cap, it's not as heavy so mwd gives better speed bonus. projectiles take less grid so you can probably fit in 2 med extenders... et cetera. I'm fine how my flycatcher works not even though it's in most of cases much worse than sabre (at least I can fit more damps which are gonna get nerfed but hey :p), but if the speed is dropped even more it is even more easy to kill and imo turns into total **.
Constance Noring	Posted - 2007.11.08 08:38:00 - [163] I like how CCP operates: first they give people some cool overpowered pvp pwnboats, let them train all the skills, then bam out of nowhere comes the nerfbat. It's the best kind of griefing.
Bimjo Caldari SKULLDOGS	Posted - 2007.11.08 08:50:00 - [164] Originally by: CCP Nozh But it's 1am soon and I need to get on with my social life.. what ? since when have CCP employees been allowed RL ?
Ozstar Naughty 40 Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.11.08 08:50:00 - [165] Whats the range on a T2 freighter? ---
Helison Gallente Times of Ancar Pure.	Posted - 2007.11.08 09:37:00 - [166] Originally by: CCP Nozh Filling their ship maintenance bay with "maxed out cargospace haulers" transporting fuel, commodities, minerals and items safely was never their intended role. That role on its own might not be a problem, but if you're using the same ship to haul and fight in we obviously have a problem. This is NO reason for completly nerfing their hauling capabilities. They are at the moment a bit too good (because of industrials), after the nerf they are too bad. I would like to see an increase of the corporate hangar array to 25k m3. The increase of the ship maintenance array is NOT really needed so far. I¦m sure that players find another way of "exploiting" it in a way, which you don¦t expect. Quote: The Jump Freighter will most likely not make logistics as easy because: They'll cost more - I think we're aiming for something around ~2.8bn build cost (not sure, not at work) They'll be harder to make - Being the first T2 capital ship, it won't exactly be a "Betty Crocker" production. I personally will profit from this (invention ftw), but this is a very bad design decision, as much too few jumpfreighters can be built because of copy times. ==> Smaller alliances will have massive problems to acquire them. ==> Big alliances will profit, small alliances will suffer. Are these your ideas of a good balance? Quote: Not everyone will want to fly them - Let's face it, a lot of people have carriers cause they're bad ass. LOL Quote: I do agree the following weeks after the change will be interesting, we've given plenty of thought to it. There will be a gap, where you'll be forced to fall back to old fashioned freighter runs, but I'm pretty sure the gap won't be too large and a lot of you will probably stock up a bit before the changes hit. THIS is harassment from the side of CCP. Delay the hauling nerf for 3-5 months, and the problem will be greatly reduced. Sure, we will use Cargo-Dreads and Rorquals for moving stuff, but I¦m sure, that dreads are NOT meant to be haulers. Other important stuff: ) Don¦t make it impossible to move cargo in ships within a carrier, but make it impossible to move haulers (in 3-5 months). This would be a much easier and solution and we won¦t see as many bugs or even exploits around the solution. (Anyone can think of moving tons of ammo and refining it later...) ) Make it possible to take rigs off nerfed ships, perhaps during patch-downtime.

CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2007.11.08 09:53:00 - [167] Originally by: Druadan The fact is that when a carrier brings ships to the frontline, those ships should be able to have ammo, other charges, and alternative module fittings in them, to give their pilot-to-be the freedom to refit the ship at the carrier. -Dru Ships stored in a ship maintenance bay can carry all charges. That includes ammo, cap boosters and scripts. As for carrying extra modules to refit in the field, that's what corp hangar bays are for aren't they?

Kuolematon Space Perverts and Forum Warriors United Cult of War	Posted - 2007.11.08 09:57:00 - [168] Originally by: CCP Zulupark Ships stored in a ship maintenance bay can carry all charges. That includes ammo, cap boosters and scripts. As for carrying extra modules to refit in the field, that's what corp hangar bays are for aren't they? Ah yes, silly us. Forgive us o'mighty CCP! I totally FORGOT that one. Let's see, ah yes. Now I can bring with me TOTAL OF 100 ITAMS in carriers cargohold .. remember that you guys nerffed modules m3's also. Nice job CCP, nice job. It's great being Amarr isn't it.

CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2007.11.08 10:07:00 - [169] Originally by: Spenz It appears CCP refuses to make anymore comments about drones. They just nerf the drone-boats, lose all focus as to what they actually are (ccp: omgz drone boats are boosted you can now launch more ewar drones whoopee) and are just going to leave it at that. Out of all the drone threads, only one got a response, and it was basically a CCP guy coming in to say "we aren't changing it because we are smarter than you goodbye". I feel as if CCP are treating drones and their users like some invention by Ron Popeil. "Just set it and forget it". The Eos is a Fleet Command ship. If you look at the other Fleet Command ships (Damnation, Vulture and Claymore) you'll see why the Eos is being balanced. As for the other ships, Dominix is not being affected. Ishtar is not being affected. The Ishkur is a frigate sized ship and can still launch 5 light drones. Myrmidon has an impressive damage output and can still field 5 medium drones. The Vexor is a tech 1 cruiser and can still launch a 2/2/1 drone combination (2x heavy, 2x medium and a light drone) for some impressive damage and can still hold spare drones.

Lady Beauvoir Slutty Witches	Posted - 2007.11.08 10:09:00 - [170] Originally by: CCP Nozh Originally by: Alski Any chance you could elaborate on the ôover the topö part? IÆm not asking in a whiney way, I genuinely donÆt understand. -Do you mean that they were being used too far out of there intended role? -Do you mean they were making 0.0 logistics too easy? If so why? Surely jump-freighters will replace Carrier logistics and so if anything will be just as easy, if not easier? -Do you mean that being able to haul, and tank, and fight all at once was the problem? Filling their ship maintenance bay with "maxed out cargospace haulers" transporting fuel, commodities, minerals and items safely was never their intended role. That role on its own might not be a problem, but if you're using the same ship to haul and fight in we obviously have a problem. The Jump Freighter will most likely not make logistics as easy because: They'll cost more - I think we're aiming for something around ~2.8bn build cost (not sure, not at work) They'll be harder to make - Being the first T2 capital ship, it won't exactly be a "Betty Crocker" production. Not everyone will want to fly them - Let's face it, a lot of people have carriers cause they're bad ass. They're much more vulnerable They won't be everyones goal after reaching BS level like the carriers currently are. I do agree the following weeks after the change will be interesting, we've given plenty of thought to it. There will be a gap, where you'll be forced to fall back to old fashioned freighter runs, but I'm pretty sure the gap won't be too large and a lot of you will probably stock up a bit before the changes hit. I'm just curious whether you have any solid plans to do something about the rorqual or dreads? As it stands, the cost jump hauling of a single m^3 of stuff is more cost-effective using a rorqual or a dread (especially if you are planning on increasing the cargo space of the rorqual. The jump freighters are going to be scarce for a long while, not to mention very expensive due to invention, while dreads and rorquals are available far more cheaply. Is this intended or is your goal to keep two ships as dedicated jump haulers - the carrier for ships and freighter for modules? If you are planning on changes, what'd you do with the rorqual and the dreads? While I understand and in a way even support the changes to carrier hauling capability, it just seems to reach the half way since the most obvious reaction is to switch to dreads or rorquals to do the same job as before while retaining both fighting and hauling capability at least to some degree. "Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connaet point." -Blaise Pascal, PensTes, 4, 277


CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2007.11.08 10:12:00 - [171] Originally by: Kuolematon Originally by: CCP Zulupark Ships stored in a ship maintenance bay can carry all charges. That includes ammo, cap boosters and scripts. As for carrying extra modules to refit in the field, that's what corp hangar bays are for aren't they? Ah yes, silly us. Forgive us o'mighty CCP! I totally FORGOT that one. Let's see, ah yes. Now I can bring with me TOTAL OF 100 ITAMS in carriers cargohold .. remember that you guys nerffed modules m3's also. Nice job CCP, nice job. You can bring quite a lot more than that, large weapons, drones, ammo, etc. Your 100 number is at best pessimistic.


CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2007.11.08 10:14:00 - [172] Originally by: Lady Beauvoir I'm just curious whether you have any solid plans to do something about the rorqual or dreads? As it stands, the cost jump hauling of a single m^3 of stuff is more cost-effective using a rorqual or a dread (especially if you are planning on increasing the cargo space of the rorqual. The jump freighters are going to be scarce for a long while, not to mention very expensive due to invention, while dreads and rorquals are available far more cheaply. Is this intended or is your goal to keep two ships as dedicated jump haulers - the carrier for ships and freighter for modules? If you are planning on changes, what'd you do with the rorqual and the dreads? While I understand and in a way even support the changes to carrier hauling capability, it just seems to reach the half way since the most obvious reaction is to switch to dreads or rorquals to do the same job as before while retaining both fighting and hauling capability at least to some degree. As far as I know we haven't put together anything solid for hauler dreads and Rorquals, but we'll have to look into those as well.

Max Teranous Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.11.08 10:15:00 - [173] Originally by: CCP Zulupark Originally by: Kuolematon Originally by: CCP Zulupark Ships stored in a ship maintenance bay can carry all charges. That includes ammo, cap boosters and scripts. As for carrying extra modules to refit in the field, that's what corp hangar bays are for aren't they? Ah yes, silly us. Forgive us o'mighty CCP! I totally FORGOT that one. Let's see, ah yes. Now I can bring with me TOTAL OF 100 ITAMS in carriers cargohold .. remember that you guys nerffed modules m3's also. Nice job CCP, nice job. You can bring quite a lot more than that, large weapons, drones, ammo, etc. Your 100 number is at best pessimistic. I can't check right now (at work) but I saw a little while ago that many capital sized modules were increased from 1000 m3 to 4000 m3. Doesn't that mean that i can't even take alternative fittings for my carrier? Max --------------------
Malachon Draco eXceed Inc.	Posted - 2007.11.08 10:20:00 - [174] Question 1: Clarification please: the nerf to hauling cargo in carriers with haulers is intended solely as a nerf to carrier versatility and not a nerf to logistics in general? Question 2: Would you consider introducing the jumpfreighters ASAP and waiting 2-3 months with the carrier cargo nerf to enable alliances to make preparations? Question 3: Alternatively, have you considered moving the Sovereignty POS away from moons and to planets? Then you could probably do the carrier cargo nerf at the same time as introducing jumpfreighters, and make everyone in 0.0 rejoice as the amount of POS fights to take over systems is reduced to a manageable number instead of the potential fight over 20-25 POS in every system. ------------------------------------------------

CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2007.11.08 10:20:00 - [175] Originally by: Max Teranous I can't check right now (at work) but I saw a little while ago that many capital sized modules were increased from 1000 m3 to 4000 m3. Doesn't that mean that i can't even take alternative fittings for my carrier? Some (many) capital modules have been increased in size a lot, yes, making it harder to carry them around with you into the front lines for quick refitting. My example of modules carried only covered battleship (and smaller) modules as that is what I thought the OP was asking about.

Kuolematon Space Perverts and Forum Warriors United Cult of War	Posted - 2007.11.08 10:20:00 - [176] Originally by: Max Teranous I can't check right now (at work) but I saw a little while ago that many capital sized modules were increased from 1000 m3 to 4000 m3. Doesn't that mean that i can't even take alternative fittings for my carrier? Now now, don't be pessimistic. CCP knows whats fun for you! Don't try to force them! It's great being Amarr isn't it.
Kuolematon Space Perverts and Forum Warriors United Cult of War	Posted - 2007.11.08 10:21:00 - [177] Originally by: CCP Zulupark You can bring quite a lot more than that, large weapons, drones, ammo, etc. Your 100 number is at best pessimistic. Ah your right, I can bring gasp 200 cruiser items with me! Whoa! Thats nice to arm .. umh 10 ships! Coolness .. NOT! It's great being Amarr isn't it.
Ashaz Mindstar Technology Talon Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.08 10:23:00 - [178] Originally by: Baleur Lol you say that it "shatters tha balance of the game" What balance? Amarr? We need all the changes we can get. And furious nerfbatting that made even me turn back to gallente gankboats is helping how exactly? All the fun ships are beeing destroyed. just look at SiSi! Everyone is going for pure gank ships after these changes. This makes me a sad panda 2 year old pilot specialized in amarr 6 gallente recons... scrapping that entire concept and training blasters like the rest.

CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2007.11.08 10:25:00 - [179] Originally by: Malachon Draco Question 1: Clarification please: the nerf to hauling cargo in carriers with haulers is intended solely as a nerf to carrier versatility and not a nerf to logistics in general? A bit of both. Originally by: Malachon Draco Question 2: Would you consider introducing the jumpfreighters ASAP and waiting 2-3 months with the carrier cargo nerf to enable alliances to make preparations? We remember that we discussed this, but I'll let Nozh answer this one as I don't have the facts 100% Originally by: Malachon Draco Question 3: Alternatively, have you considered moving the Sovereignty POS away from moons and to planets? Then you could probably do the carrier cargo nerf at the same time as introducing jumpfreighters, and make everyone in 0.0 rejoice as the amount of POS fights to take over systems is reduced to a manageable number instead of the potential fight over 20-25 POS in every system. Starbase warfare, sovereignty and the likes is something we'd like to look at at some point in time. I do not, however, know when that time will be available.

Kuolematon Space Perverts and Forum Warriors United Cult of War	Posted - 2007.11.08 10:25:00 - [180] Originally by: Ashaz 2 year old pilot specialized in amarr 6 gallente recons... scrapping that entire concept and training blasters like the rest. Luckily for me, my 2nd char is pure gallente (as I am pure amarr) but sadly, he got 10mil "wasted sp" out of 45mil to science and other carebear skills . Althou HAC lvl5 is nice for Ishtar It's great being Amarr isn't it.



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 24 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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