EVE Search - Carriers - Will they or won't they?

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Carriers - Will they or won't they?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Sigma Six	Posted - 2007.11.20 00:21:00 - [1] I have heard from numerous people that the nerf to Carriers on Sisi ("not able to put haulers with cargo into ship maint. bay") is going to happen. ...Others say it's not. Which is it?
Caligulus Eve University Ivy League	Posted - 2007.11.20 00:25:00 - [2] It will certainly cripple small time alliances in 0.0. ------------------------------------------------- ** Name ONE thing that your windows comp can do that my MAC cant ** Right click.
Sigma Six	Posted - 2007.11.20 00:28:00 - [3] Ya - IF they do it. I am asking if it will happen or not. On one hand, we have devs saying the Carrier isn't meant to be a hauler, there was a dev response in a thread somewhere saying something along the lines of "it will be fun to see haulers bringing fuel to 0.0 before people can train for the jump freighter". On the other hand, at the bottom of the devblog about the "carrier - Swiss army knife of eve?" there is an EDIT saying the changes on Sisi are a "mistake".... So I'm completely confused.
cal nereus Perkone	Posted - 2007.11.20 00:31:00 - [4] Nothing that happens on SiSi is set in stone. Even the changes that CCP advertises can be modified or dropped entirely by the time Tranq is patched/updated. --- Join BH-DL Skills
Sigma Six	Posted - 2007.11.20 00:34:00 - [5] I know - that's rule #1 for sure. I'm asking if anybody has heard tidbits of information regarding the change. 1/2 the people I speak with say it's gonna happen because "CCP whoever" said so-and-so, and the other 1/2 say it's not gonna happen because "CCP thatguy" said such-and-such. So nobody has heard anything? If you have, please share it and your opinions.
I SoStoned	Posted - 2007.11.20 00:36:00 - [6] I believe they've stated that the carrier idiocy is going to happen, with an increase in the hangar size to carry a whopping... woah... 4 BS (with their ammo safely in their cargo, not nerfed) or a whole pastle of frigs/cruisers. For the love of Jove I hope the idiot drone idea is not implemented (carrier can control a sum of 5 fighters/drones, delegating additional fighters to others to the max number by pilot skill). Both ideas were poorly thought out, who cares if carriers are so useful. The players developed their utility, and they are far from the 'ultimate' ships out there. I believe that the 'mistake' they mentioned was the change to freighter mass which made it impossible to jump-bridge them (a mistake that should be implemented, IMO, to balance the megalliances with the kicked-in-the-gonads smaller alliances no longer able to move fuel by carrier). http://www.voogru.com/images/signature/farmers.jpg
Caligulus Eve University Ivy League	Posted - 2007.11.20 00:37:00 - [7] I apologize for my original statement as it was somewhat a tangent to the OP. Carriers are getting changed. I believe it is important to the game that no single ship should be the be all and end all of the game. Every ship should excel in their role but perform miserably at all other tasks. That being said, I do agree with the sentiment that anything that appears on SiSi is not set in stone and subject to change entirely between SiSi and Tranq. ------------------------------------------------- ** Name ONE thing that your windows comp can do that my MAC cant ** Right click.
Sigma Six	Posted - 2007.11.20 00:40:00 - [8] Edited by: Sigma Six on 20/11/2007 00:40:50 Ya, I thought that about the Freighters too - but: Linkage (read the last line) The fighter thing I'm sure will happen, but that's out of the scope for this thread I'm more wondering about the hauling capabilities of Carriers. IMHO it would be REALLY nice and make a LOT of sense if they used modules to balance the Carrier - A hauling module for logistic operations, another module for fighters/pvp etc - Essentially making it an "either/or" ship instead of "do it all".
Andrue Amarr	Posted - 2007.11.20 10:03:00 - [9] Edited by: Andrue on 20/11/2007 10:03:24 Edited by: Andrue on 20/11/2007 10:02:56 Originally by: I SoStoned Both ideas were poorly thought out, who cares if carriers are so useful. Anyone who understands MMORPGs and Eve in particular will care. The game needs variety of ships and variety of fittings. There is not supposed to be an 'end-game' ship which does everything for anyone. Players should be discouraged from becoming too dependant on one feature for their game play. It makes them vulnerable to changes which are a neccessary part of Eve's evolution. The day that game play becomes static is the day that Eve starts to die. Quote: The players developed their utility, and they are far from the 'ultimate' ships out there. The players also developed Jita. Blob warfare. POS ping-pong. Jet can mining. Warp to Zero bookmarks. Gate camping in Empire. Macro mining. Lag-based market scams. Shuttle lagging and probably half a dozen more techniques that I've forgotten or never knew. News flash:The players are not always right. Quote: IMO, to balance the megalliances with the kicked-in-the-gonads smaller alliances no longer able to move fuel by carrier). Carriers were never supposed to be used to fuel POS. As has happened so often before players found a mistake and developed it to their advantage. As is so often the case the result destabilised the game (in this case by allowing some alliances to hold more territory than their size and skill/resource base should allow). CCP are fixing the issue and restoring game balance. The sooner they do that the better. Sometimes they let things fester for too long (Jetcan mining and WTZ are perhaps the most infamous examples). -- (Battle hardened industrialist) [Brackley, UK] My budgie can say "ploppy bottom". You have been warned.
Mrsticks Minmatar RNCGM Inc.	Posted - 2007.11.20 10:07:00 - [10] Originally by: Caligulus Edited by: Caligulus on 20/11/2007 00:27:46 It will certainly cripple small time alliances in 0.0. EDIT:: Then again, any fool that puts all their eggs in one basket when playing an MMO deserves getting ***ed on the noggin when the nerf bat inevitably makes its rampage. It still baffles me how long time MMO players can't cope with changing game mechanics when it's a dominating characteristic. Im Sorry Noob Question here.. Won't the changes help(Or atleast not hurt as mutch) the Small alliances, Vs the Big ones who it would seem like this would be a Major Hit? Never done anything in 0.0 really I'm probably missing something. Long Live TEXAS!** Texans join the Texas channel in game plz.
Tharrn Amarr Epitoth Fleetyards Vigilia Valeria	Posted - 2007.11.20 10:13:00 - [11] Originally by: Caligulus Edited by: Caligulus on 20/11/2007 00:27:46 It will certainly cripple small time alliances in 0.0. I guess we qualify as small and I can't see it crippling us the slightest. There's still the Revelation (bout 50kish cargo with an honor tank) and the Rorqual (soon to have 130k cargo + 10k corphangar) for hauling. I really don't understand all the hysteria. Now recruiting!
Icarus Starkiller Minmatar	Posted - 2007.11.20 11:10:00 - [12] Originally by: Andrue Edited by: Andrue on 20/11/2007 10:03:24 Edited by: Andrue on 20/11/2007 10:02:56 Originally by: I SoStoned Both ideas were poorly thought out, who cares if carriers are so useful. Anyone who understands MMORPGs and Eve in particular will care. The game needs variety of ships and variety of fittings. There is not supposed to be an 'end-game' ship which does everything for anyone. Once people spend the time to get to this level they deserve something of a 'peak game' ship, something they can attain and stick with, rather than continually forcing people into bigger and bigger ships just to keep their e'peen erect. As it stands right now anyway nano-gangs far outstrip carrier blobs (I'd postulate that a good 80% of the carriers currently in use are used primarily for hauling, secondarily for combat). There's a lot of skills that go into flying a carrier and doing it well. A blanket troutslap is a harsh how-do-you-do for people that have put the considerable time into training for them... in whatever role they use them. And hauling carrier != combat carrier, by far. - Life is pain...anyone who says differently is selling something.
Andrue Amarr	Posted - 2007.11.20 11:42:00 - [13] Edited by: Andrue on 20/11/2007 11:45:29 Edited by: Andrue on 20/11/2007 11:43:06 Originally by: Icarus Starkiller Once people spend the time to get to this level they deserve something of a 'peak game' ship, something they can attain and stick with, rather than continually forcing people into bigger and bigger ships just to keep their e'peen erect. ..and then what? Once they have the ship? I'll tell you what - they quit out of bordeom. I've been playing since February '04 so I have a lot of experience in long-term game play. Only two things keep you going:Socialising and variety. In fact it's only one thing because most of the socialising is discussing ships and ship fittings and if everyone flies the same ship then what is there to discuss? After a few months flying the same ship over and over again it gets old. The same tactics, the same modules, the same responses. It's like anything else in life. You have to experience change in order to avoid boredom. Change is the life-blood of Eve as it is for any MMORPG. Most MMORPGs provide change by rolling out new missions or new battles. Eve is more of a sandbox so that option isn't really there. Instead it has to encourage players to change the way they play. In effect if Eve is a sandbox then CCP have the job of regularly stirring the sand to stop it getting clumped up, adding different coloured sand to make it look different and providing new toys to play in it. Unfortunately inherent in that process of continual change is the risk that something they do upsets the sand. Maybe that snazzy new bright pink colour causes it clump more often or gives off toxic fumes when combined with the dark green sand. In those situations CCP have to act to fix the problem and sometimes that means removing a favourite colour. -- (Battle hardened industrialist) [Brackley, UK] My budgie can say "ploppy bottom". You have been warned.
CaldFighter	Posted - 2007.11.20 11:53:00 - [14] roll on the rorq nerf, clearly a mining command ship shouldn't be able to give bonuses, refine AND haul... i mean, thats like a swiss army knife
aevistyne Caldari Junkyard Warriors	Posted - 2007.11.20 12:03:00 - [15] Originally by: I SoStoned I believe they've stated that the carrier idiocy is going to happen, with an increase in the hangar size to carry a whopping... woah... 4 BS (with their ammo safely in their cargo, not nerfed) or a whole pastle of frigs/cruisers. For the love of Jove I hope the idiot drone idea is not implemented (carrier can control a sum of 5 fighters/drones, delegating additional fighters to others to the max number by pilot skill). Both ideas were poorly thought out, who cares if carriers are so useful. The players developed their utility, and they are far from the 'ultimate' ships out there. I believe that the 'mistake' they mentioned was the change to freighter mass which made it impossible to jump-bridge them (a mistake that should be implemented, IMO, to balance the megalliances with the kicked-in-the-gonads smaller alliances no longer able to move fuel by carrier). I personally don't mind the idea of them nerfing the carrier hauling ability, if something has to be nerfed about them, thats what I would pick personally (As long as jump freighters actually turn out to be useful ships). If they increase the ship maintenence bay so it can fit BS's i really support this idea, but I prefer my carrier to be used for battlefield logistics and combat, rather than straight hauling, that's why i have a freighter pilot as well. If they are to both nerf the hauling capacity AND the ability for the carriers to use more than 5 fighters/drones then they are going to make carriers almost useless, there is no need at all for a carrier to lose the ability to field up to 15 fighters, anyone with any sort of experience will know how easy it is to pick fighters off, small ships can outrun them, larger ships can outwarp them and get people to kill them when they're followed in warp, the dronebay means that a carrier can only hold an extra 3 or 4 fighters without compromising on their regular drone capacity, so it's already working fine. The whole carrier not being able to go through a jump bridge thing makes sense, they have their own jump drives, make them use them. So basically, it all really depends on how the jump freighters turn out, obviously there will be interesting times while people train up for the jump freighters, but that can;t really be avoided, but nerfing the carriers combat ability is just stupid, carriers are NOT solopwnmobiles, and can easily be taken down by a decent sized gang, they are capital ships, and small gangs shouldnt be able to take them out. So as long as theyre only nerfing the hauling abilities, I really couldnt care less. CEO of Junkyard Warriors EvE +NLINE - T+TALHELLDEATH SUPPORTER
Admiral Nova Strike Team Nova	Posted - 2007.11.20 12:07:00 - [16] This particular nerf is most certainly coming in Rev3. The nerf that 'is not yet certain' is the fighter control one.
Andrue Amarr	Posted - 2007.11.20 12:28:00 - [17] Edited by: Andrue on 20/11/2007 12:29:12 Originally by: CaldFighter roll on the rorq nerf, clearly a mining command ship shouldn't be able to give bonuses, refine AND haul... i mean, thats like a swiss army knife You may well have a point. Personally I would have the refining worse than at a station or POS. In effect you trade off profit for convenience/safety. NB:I haven't looked at the Rorq because it's been ages since I last mined so perhaps CCP have done that. I don't have any objection to ships being able to perform more than one function. I just think that they should either be crap at that other function or else suffer a severe and crippling penalty when configured for that role. For me it's all about encouraging players to experience variety and providing a reason for having dozens of different ship types. -- (Battle hardened industrialist) [Brackley, UK] My budgie can say "ploppy bottom". You have been warned.
Verite Rendition Caldari F.R.E.E. Explorer Atrum Tempestas Foedus	Posted - 2007.11.20 12:31:00 - [18] Originally by: Admiral Nova Edited by: Admiral Nova on 20/11/2007 12:08:55 Oh, and the freighter mass 'mistake' the mass was not a mistake, it will cost 10x as much to jump bridge a freighter in rev 3. The 'mistake' was that there was not enough fuel storable in the bridges for it. So they WILL be bridgable, but you will be looking at over 10m to do it instead of just over 1m. Damn straight. Nerf logistics. 0.0 should only be a playground, everyone should live in Empire! ---- FREE Explorer Lead Megalomanic EVE Automated Influence Map
Princess Jodi Vendetta Underground Rule of Three	Posted - 2007.11.20 17:08:00 - [19] Originally by: TharrnI guess we qualify as small and I can't see it crippling us the slightest. There's still the Revelation (bout 50kish cargo with an honor tank) and the Rorqual (soon to have 130k cargo + 10k corphangar) for hauling. I really don't understand all the hysteria. The above demonstrates exactly why the Carrier Nerf is a BAD idea. The problem is not that Carriers are being used to haul - its that we don't have anything to properly haul WITH! Jump Freighters are a year+ late. If CCP had put them in a year ago, we wouldn't be having discussions about nerfing Carriers.
Jezabel2	Posted - 2007.11.20 17:18:00 - [20] Within CCP's logic are motherships "carrier's" and will get hit by the sanem nerfs?
Sigma Six	Posted - 2007.11.20 17:38:00 - [21] What a lot of you are not understanding (or choosing to ignore) is the fact that training for a Rorq or Jump Freighter takes time. In the length of time between them nerfing the carrier's hauling abilities, and people actually having the skills to fly a Jump Freighter is going to be lengthy, and in that time people will have to resort to manually hauling from empire. I dunno - maybe this is what CCP wants, but it really doesn't make the game any more fun for me. Removing the logistic hauling capabilities of the Carrier will only affect smaller corporations for sure. Larger Corps will just end up using a Titan to haul stuff in the meantime.
DrAtomic Atomic Heroes Phalanx Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.20 18:18:00 - [22] Funny thing is that Devs say carrier != hauler however what drops from a NPC carrier? Minerals, **loads of minerals! So carrier == hauler. ----------------------------------------------- Originally by:** CCP Sharkbait we are screwed. My Top 10 List
J Valkor Blackguard Brigade	Posted - 2007.11.20 18:34:00 - [23] Originally by: Sigma Six What a lot of you are not understanding (or choosing to ignore) is the fact that training for a Rorq or Jump Freighter takes time. In the length of time between them nerfing the carrier's hauling abilities, and people actually having the skills to fly a Jump Freighter is going to be lengthy, and in that time people will have to resort to manually hauling from empire. I dunno - maybe this is what CCP wants, but it really doesn't make the game any more fun for me. Removing the logistic hauling capabilities of the Carrier will only affect smaller corporations for sure. Larger Corps will just end up using a Titan to haul stuff in the meantime. Jump Freighters, since it only needs the freighter skill to level 4, will not be lenghy. Even if you wait till patch day it shouldn't take you more than a week, and I am sure most pilots are smarter than that.
Sigma Six	Posted - 2007.11.20 18:52:00 - [24] Ya well that doesn't help me because I don't have Industrial V. Small Corp, remember?
Rudlls Minmatar Ascent of Ages Dark Matter Coalition	Posted - 2007.11.20 19:12:00 - [25] Originally by: J Valkor Originally by: Sigma Six stuff Jump Freighters, since it only needs the freighter skill to level 4, will not be lenghy. Even if you wait till patch day it shouldn't take you more than a week, and I am sure most pilots are smarter than that. right, and because the ships will be IMMEDIATELY available to purchase on the market, all will be nice happy and pink. personally I had a good laugh at the dev blog saying that carrier can be used in all its roles with no refitting needed. I guess the max recharge fitted transport configuration carrier with no real tank will blow the enemies away!....... right

Pages: [1] :: 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.