Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 .. 93 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 9 post(s) |
Maxima Maxi
Pink Bunnies C0VEN
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:12:00 -
[1411]
Well if they want to make carriers to be teethless cats then thats not what i got my alt for, can i have my isk back?
|
faltzswher
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:13:00 -
[1412]
Edited by: faltzswher on 22/10/2007 14:13:12 Yay now I can solo carriers in my raven \o/
oh wait uber tank moros at a gate with sentries :s - oh well carebear dream one day soon....
|
Miz Cenuij
Caldari Simply Smacktackular
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:15:00 -
[1413]
54 pages in and the threadnought of hate continues to grow...
[/center]
"Men are going to |
ArmyOfMe
hirr Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:17:00 -
[1414]
Originally by: Tzrailasa Is the problem blobbing? Sorry, but you created THIS problem yourselves! Shootable POS structures and station services ensured it. Add the fact that the ONLY counter to a blob is a bigger blob, and you have the mess that is fleet warfare now. Removing carriers from the game will not make this go away.[*]
At worst, I think you haven't got a clue about 0.0 warfare....
Originally by: Tzrailasa
So in essence, you're admitting you don't know BY EXPERIENCE what you're talking about???
This is the same complaint a lot of people here has about Zuluparks 'fix'. It simply doesn't make ANY sense to anyone who've tried to fight in the lagged out blob-hell that is todays 0.0 warfare experience.
Carriers didn't make this blob-hell.... CCP did by their design decisions....
Qft
|
Clamn8er
Refuge of the Damned
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:18:00 -
[1415]
Originally by: Nytemaster
Originally by: Jane Spondogolo Edited by: Jane Spondogolo on 22/10/2007 12:42:59 Well, since this thread is stacked with bug eyed carrier nuts, theres hardly little room for rational disussion of the topic.
...
And I remind the 2yo capship pilots that you have *no idea* how hard it is to be a newer player in 0.0. When you where one, you didn't have to put up with the bull**** your subjecting newbies to now.
/signed
Best post in this thread thus far. (Haven't read ALL of it though)
Hm. How is that the best quote??
Just because the two of you clearly cannot use / have no idea how to deal with carriers, this is not a reason to nerf them. Try and LEARN instead.
I drive a pink BMW with a (seatbelted) teddy bear in the passenger seat. I play Abba at maximum volume. That's the way I like it. So unless I'm packing an Uzi and two hand grenades, I try not to venture into the bad parts of town, cos I'm likely to get laid out flat. Word of advice ... Do the same. |
USS OMAHA
Gallente THE INQUISITI0N
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:21:00 -
[1416]
Edited by: USS OMAHA on 22/10/2007 14:21:13
Quote: Zulupark makes his introductory Dev Blog from his new position in the Game Design team.
Well 55 pages in, I'm sure he's pretty much looking forward to getting a new position in CCP cos so far it's not looking promising. Possibly somewhere where he can't affect my game. How about that whitewolf card game thingy you guys have going on for kids, either that or tell him to clear the cache in the creative side of his brain and reboot.
Only Joking
|
Max Teranous
Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:22:00 -
[1417]
Let's face it. A mothership should not have less dps than a rorqual when using drones. The concept is insane.
And pimping the sig
Max
--------------------
|
Deacon Ix
Ascendant Strategies Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:23:00 -
[1418]
From an RP/RL/logical viewpoint nerfing as a whole is just dumb,
If an OMGWTFPWN weapon comes along what happens is that a counter is produced,
Arrows Plate Armour Castles Catapults Cannons Battleships (Ironclads) Submarines ect
even up to Nukes for which there are various conuters proposed/avaliable (IIRC Starwars being one)
Rather than the whole Nerf waggon moving the goal posts after many players have spent alot of time and Iskies, bring in a counter.
tho TBH a small squad of BS can take out a Carrier, Moms are different - the only issue I see is the use of super caps in low sec, there are various RP reasons for keeping SC's out of low sec Established Empires wouldn't allow any ship of that size in their soverin space, The huge mass of these ships can upset planetry climets with their gravity and certianly governments wouldn't like some pod pilot to cause a tidal wave and wipe out their tax payers...
and pimp the sig...
|
Haniblecter Teg
F.R.E.E. Explorer Atrum Tempestas Foedus
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:23:00 -
[1419]
I fail to see the effectiveness of using a ton of carriers for a quick strike. A quick strike on what? Smaller ships? Caps outside the POS? What targets can carriers possibly attack quickly enough to make them useful, but not risk them unnecesarily to some lone ****ty tackler.
I do agree with the one poster who says this is a regression to getting carriers out of the POS. To counter that effct, they should strengthen the defense of carreirs, repper/resis boni, AND boost their remote bonuses to non-cap ships. IF they make carriers capable of giving BS's the ability to tank 1000+ dps--with the carrier being even better--than you may see small gangs utilizing a carrier more.
Hell, making the triage mode shorter + allow the use of fighters will prolly accomplish this effect ----------------- Friends Forever
Kill. BoB. Dead. |
Zareph
Minmatar Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:24:00 -
[1420]
Disclaimer: I can't fly a carrier, I've never flown a carrier, and I've never seen one in action. However, when I first heard 'there are carriers!' and one of the many reasons I joined the game vs. how they're actually implemented kinda changed my initial excitement.
To me, a carrier is a vessel that is huge, and holds other fighter craft that do most of its dirty work. Most of the items mounted to a carrier are point defense to keep the riff raff away, I'm thinking 'Battlestar Galactica' type of defense with AA and what not, few missle batteries etc.
What I don't really like the idea of is how carriers work. The fighters are basically fancy drones.
They're not real people. To me a carrier should have x amount of fighter bay space, and you have real live players dock up and prepare to launch out of the carrier. The carrier jumps in, the frigates/cruisers/small support craft (aka Raptors in BSG) fire out and kick butt, and hope the carrier survives the encounter so that they can dock and jump free. If the carrier goes, the real live players are royally screwed and have to jump gate back to wherever they came from.
Too me, that would make carriers exciting. otherwise as I understand it they're no more than a giant big drone thing and I view the nerf bat as a necessary evil. But if it could carry 10 - 30 (skill dependent) frigates and another 3 -5 support ships (skill dependent) *that* would be exciting from my point of view. While all answers are replies, not all replies are answers. |
|
Arekaine
Gallente 101 Industries Division of Eden
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:24:00 -
[1421]
Anything that promotes fleet ops tactics is a good thing __________________________________________________ Due to a fatal error. This program has been forced to close. Please restart to fix the problem. Any unsaved data will be lost........Sucks huh? |
Sinder Ohm
Infinite Improbability Inc Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:30:00 -
[1422]
Originally by: Kerfira Edited by: Kerfira on 22/10/2007 14:01:53 I tried looking into the future a bit after this nerf, and what I saw in my crystal ball was this dev blog.
Originally by: Future Dev Blog Hi, I'm Zalapurk and recently transferred from the Quality Assurance department to the Game Design team. IÆve been with CCP for just under two years now and donÆt plan on going anywhere. Say hello to your newest balancer (I still haven't received a nerfbat though).
I'm posting here now because the last few days we've been looking at the way battleships are functioning on Tranquility, and to be honest weære a little concerned with the direction itæs taking.
What we want is pretty basic: We want to make battleships more reliant on their support fleet and less of a direct nber deathbringer.
How are we going to do it?
Well, we have an idea, and before you go ballistic remember that this is an idea and weære still working on it:
We plan on changing the way guns work, and have it so that you can still have all the guns you want (within limits of your ship/skills) but you can only directly fire 2 of them at a time. That means that a battleship can assign 2 guns to a gang mate, assign 2 more to another gang mate etc. etc.
This means you will NOT be able to fire 6/7/8 guns from a battleship and aim them all to incinerate a cruiser in .2 seconds. It does however mean that you can assign 2 guns to each of your lilæ friends in the fleet and use them as the messengers of your burning fury.
Remember, weære not messing with the final total amount of guns you can have, just the amount you can control and delegate at a time. You can of course also operate 2 guns and make them attack a target of your own choice, if it pleases you.
HAHAHA thats gold great post dude!
Originally by: Karanth Wimps play empire. Real men play in 0.0. Hardcore masochists live out in drone space.
|
Princess Jodi
Vendetta Underground Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:33:00 -
[1423]
I say CCP fires Zulupark instead! Nerf the bastard right out of CCP!
I'm not even going to TRY to be civil about this! NO! Hell NO. MF'ing Hell NO!
|
Kublai Khan
Caldari TAOSP Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:34:00 -
[1424]
Tumbs up for CCP! What a marvellous idea!
I really hope CCP will listen to the community on this one and adress the problems and not screw over 1000's of thir subscribers.
I know many have pointed it out before, but lag is the hallmark of whats wrong with 0.0 space, not that carriers can field their own fighters. Screwing over them wont be helping this at all and at worst will make it worse:
Most capital pilots probably have 2-3-4-5 accounts that they do various things with. I have 3 capital chars spread about EVE to react to things at different locations. Of course I have non-capital chars as well. Today I log on one of my capital chars and fight on grid with that. So what will I be doing if these are the changes coming about. Ill log on my two carrier chars, put them at a pos, assign fighters to gang members, log on a battleship character and assign fighters to him as well. Noone will ever bother to fight with their carriers on grid with these changes, and with that at a pos then they can all play with their other chars and if killed, well, ill have some replacements in my carrier. It might end up having more ppl "calculations" on the grid, not to mention that if im at a pos ill fit 4 DCU's on my carrier and up the lag created by my carrier by 40%, and since i can use two...
But yeah, this will of course be easier for the defending party, we just have to meet up another hour before to just get the gang and fighters sorted (like we needed another new booring aspect for POS warfare). The attacking party if not allready in system will have no chance of assigning before jumping in (for instance while taking down cyno jammer).
What needs to be done is what others have pointed out but since you guys haven't explained what you're trying to fix...: - If lag: Reduce the amount of fighters that the carriers and mommas can yield, 5 for carrier and 10 for ms and compensate for their damage and hp. Make the Drone Control Units affect the HP and damage each fighter does instead of adding more fighters. This also makes targeting fighters when small carrier groups are present more efficient. - MS in low sec, well remove their ability to release drones. - To make them harder to kill and if you want to force ppl into using triage for something, remove the ability to use capital transfers of all kinds without going into triage, or make them lots worse outside of triage. Allthough everyone will target the minmatar one...
There are allready counters to fighters. I recall one battle we had against goons where they had fitted lots of smartbombs on their battleships and suddenly we were stuck down in feyathabolis with 5-6 fighters each... I dont want to think about the amount of isk that was lost in that minute they were nuked...
Another problem by ******* over carriers like this is whats going to prevent ppl from sieging with 50 dreads and nuke towers coming out of reinforced? Now carriers have a chance of making the opponent think twice about doing it, because the cost could be so high... Oh well, at least i can use T2 sentries on my moros if they go through with this...
Worst thing that happened to 0.0 PvP, beside POS warfare, is interdictors tho (as apparently this nerf is to make 0.0 warfare more fun?). They really ****** up the "small scalle" pvp aspect, cus its so easy for a bigger group to nuke a smaller coming through gates and screwing their pods as well. So ppl blob more and more. There were lots more tactics involved before. And the dumbest thing with it is the bubble that stays there and the dictor can just warp out, maybe you should change the "small" dictor to work the same ways as heavy dictors, or just let bubbles only keep capitals from jumping... Was more fun before when ppl had to go in and scramble instead of just duking it out from distance with 10 dictors hitting warp, bubble and warp out...
Good Job CCP! Linkage |
fire elf
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:34:00 -
[1425]
COME ON
i have soon a carriar and i whandt too get alots of fighters if they are removing the drones give them guns instead !! i dont like this at all
|
Lillandra Peregrine
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:35:00 -
[1426]
oh dear. I must say this is an awful idea. the majority of replies to this topic are right.
nerfing is not a way to solve perceived 'problems'. delicate balancing and tweaking is reasonable.
but you are proposing a change that will drastically affect the training time and investment of lots of people and negate the worth of one of the most effective ships in eve.
by your own logic : capital ships are being used way too much as better-than-battleships-at-killing-stuff ships
and there's a problem with that? what's wrong with a bigger and more expensive ship being better at a smaller and cheaper ship at killing stuff? you risk more and gain more don't you?
btw : the-ships-that-keep-other-ships-alive-and- provide-them-with-additional-firepower
I think those are logistics and command ships.
a carrier without support going against a well organized force is toast. it doesn't need such a drastic change as you are proposing. no offense but consider spending time improving the color scheme for the rev 3 gallente ships..? :)
|
velocity7
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:43:00 -
[1427]
I think that instead of forcing carriers to delegate, there should be a bonus to delegating the fighters instead. That way, delegating is greatly encouraged rather than forced.
|
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar MASS HOMICIDE Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:44:00 -
[1428]
People that is just saying no. Try to bring up some ideas also. Because fore sure something MUST be done to prevent this game becoming Capitals Online.
Maybe buff the battleships? Give BS a bit more of HP so they can survive long enough to do anything?
Maybe create a new module that for example gives 20% extra damage and 20% rof but with 20% tracking penalty (so would be useful against capitals only)
Limit fighters deployment in 1 per second ( example) to avoid the mom warp in target, you dead ....
If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough |
Prydeless
Vengeance of the Fallen
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:45:00 -
[1429]
That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. You suck if you do that and you suck in a big way! Freakin waste of time on all my skills for my carrier because if you do this you will nerf it back to the friggin stone age. omfg
Disclaimer: I am a God. |
Missy Saints
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:46:00 -
[1430]
NOOOOOOOOOO and her I am 3 days from a Thanatos, may have to go the moros route now..
|
|
Saladin
Minmatar Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:49:00 -
[1431]
This is a horrible idea. It completely renders carriers not worth the skill points and cash poured into them. Nevermind the fighters can't be launched from inside a POS, or that they are relatively ineffective against small ships. Fighters are easy to kill, and all this change does is allow carriers to be ganked more easily with no risk to the assaulting team. For many reasons now, the dominix would be looking far more attractive than a carrier after these changes. ----
|
The Fates
Caldari Perkone
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:50:00 -
[1432]
Meanwhile, back at CCP...
"56 pages of mostly hatemail and growing sir"
"excellent, full speed ahead"
"i think this future dev blog is a pretty good idea too"
"yes, yes i was just looking at that. we'll have to include that in a future patch"
"alright we're done here let's grab some drinks"
"kk"
"you think this change will be enough to maintain the balance of power?"
"I sure hope so, if it doesn't the next change will have to be really sick"
"lol"
"we're just going to have to cross our fingers"
"kk boss im thirsty"
"yeah, lets go"
__ Be content with your lot; one cannot be first in everything. --Aesop |
Valea
Wrath Of Khaine
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:52:00 -
[1433]
Originally by: velocity7 I think that instead of forcing carriers to delegate, there should be a bonus to delegating the fighters instead. That way, delegating is greatly encouraged rather than forced.
PFF, that would make sense and too many people would like it. What we really need is to have a carrier do less damage than a dominix with normal drones. And stop people from flying without support, since it isn't REALLY EASY to damp a solo carrier to hell with one ship.
CCP, I have stuck around for a lot of crap, but not this. Do not do it.
|
Manas
The Graduates Brutally Clever Empire
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:53:00 -
[1434]
Lots of over-the-top hate coming with respect to a rather modest suggested change.
It should be noted that a number of hidden carrier buffs are coming: * Better drone control, so that fighters won't warp away when the target does (and take forever to get back). * The inevitable sensor damp nerf.
A do hope a solution is found to keep the variety of combined arms in fleet battles (and thus a place for newer players to join in on 0.0 fun). Gangs of titans, Moms, and capships, are forcing the survivability and utility of non-capship players to nil. Multiple DDDs.. yeesh. Carriers and MOMs, even with this nerf, are going to be the ship to train for if you wish to participate in high-end 0.0 fleet battles.
-Manas Carrier pilot for nerfing supercap and cap ships
TGRAD info |
Larsonist
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:53:00 -
[1435]
Quote: with bias I mean that you need look further then your own win button, that now might become harder to click, we think it will do some good in general but if you disagree then explain why you think it will not meet our goals. That is constructive criticism.
I was hired because Ive been playing for a long time and I am training up for captital ships, we all have here but sometimes you have to do things that even hurt your own win button if you believe it will benefit gameplay on a larger scale.
Allrighty. try this.
1. Blobbling will still happen. you guys made the game, if you are competent you will see it will still. 2. Interfacing with fighters will become an issue with attacking forces. you guys made the game, if you are competent you will see it will only get worse. 3. Fighter damage does not translate back to the carrier pilot with delegated fighters properly, needs fixing. if you guys are competent, you will see this happens and will continue unless you fix it. 4. You are now wanting to make it so carrier/MOM pilots are FORCED to give our own assets to other players in the game. UNACCEPTABLEif you guys are competent, you will see that this is also a major flaw in the "idea". with the price of fighters, its no different than forcing corps/alliances to loaning tier one battleships to mates so they can have damage dealing vessesl. X5 fighters = 100 million isk. unfortunately, fighters die much faster than battleships pending on situation. our assets should be ours 5. MAJOR POINT. you guys added these ships into the game. if you are/were competent IN THE LEAST you should have realized the power and capabilities of these vessels. you guys left them ingame this long, and now they are being potentially altered dramatically.
I hope this post ****ed some of you off CPP. WHY? because 50+ pages later and you are STILL saying we are whining about losing our iwin buttons? WTF is a 30 billion isk ship? i would hope to h*l* it IS a force to be reckoned with. i mean for %%%* sake guys, a pilot in a mothership is BOUND to it guys! what is he going to do when there is no support? You want him to just log on and sit safely behind a pos shield on off days with alliances/corps arent doing anything? NO, he is going to do logistics or gate camp .4 systems or have a good time. Now, he will have a totally useless vessel, along with carriers, until its time to pos hug and delegate fighters in defense. NO ONE in their right mind will jump into a major capital fight now due to the lag that is apparent with a carrier or MOM.
if you implement this, you will alienate those wanting and owning capital carrier/MOM vessels. If you implement this, i can promise a "day of pigs" on your income. If you implement this, you are only proving the point that you want your game to become World of Wimps 2.
rant off
|
Owi
Es and Whizz Hedonistic Imperative
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:55:00 -
[1436]
if you do ..better rename carrier to "Little freigther with jumpability" *coughs
right now if you catch a carrier solo, it mostly dont even stand vs a good gang. with 5 fighter ..hmm may try tank`m and watch how it goes down.
My EvE-Files.com folder !
|
velocity7
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:56:00 -
[1437]
Originally by: Valea
Originally by: velocity7 I think that instead of forcing carriers to delegate, there should be a bonus to delegating the fighters instead. That way, delegating is greatly encouraged rather than forced.
PFF, that would make sense and too many people would like it.
QFT
|
Ryan Darkwolf
Amarr Viziam
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:57:00 -
[1438]
There was once a great saying...it went something like this, and I quote:
"You're not supposed to feel like you're logging in to a happy, happy, fluffy, fluffy lala land filled with fun and adventures, that's what hello kitty online is for."
Ive seen way too many nerfs in the 3 years I've played (my character age lies) Titan nerf I understood...NOS nerf I was willing to live with even though it was a drastic change for some players...this carrier change..I understand but don't see what is being accomplished... I have tanked fighters in a battle ship so I can assure you that a formation of fighters can't take it out in .2 secs.
CCP please fix the lag and other bugs and issues at the moment. Worry about making the game more like Hello Kitty once all the 16 year olds and younger get bored of WOW ------------------- I had a moderated siggy once...but then I pwned it...just like this
Originally by: CCP Wrangler So, now everyone is in here drooling about our fit for female t-shirts... |
Cadela Fria
Amarr Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:57:00 -
[1439]
Originally by: Malachon Draco
Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't know 2003 players had to fight battles with enemy titans who could wipe out entire grids, or face 30+ carriers and 10+ moms while they were establishing their little space empires...
2003 people competed with each other too, but if what you're asking is for current new players to experience the same playing field 2003 players were, then that's just rediculous (sp?). You'd have to remove all ships except T1 battleships, cruisers and frigates and only have Tier 1 battleships and so on.
Just because they competed with different ships, doesn't mean it wasn't just as hard..think of how difficult it was to risk and replace ships back then due to lack of things like mining barges, mining foreman bonuses and all that fancy crap.
|
vostok
Minmatar Suns Of Korhal YouWhat
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 15:00:00 -
[1440]
omg no please dont do this, this means carrier pilots will have to entrust several million isk of drones to people they probably dont even know, with the only 5 drones at a time rule too the pilots wont be able to send them back to the carrier if they're taking damage. and if the ship assigned fighters dies, what do the fighters do then?! warp to your ship and NOT dock in your drone bay because they're orbitting you at 2500m thank you tit who decided that on test server not to mention no auto agres, ffs i was doing a level 5 mission and every time i killed a bs all my fighter mwd back to me and run into my smartbombs, they barely respond to commands to move onto a new target, i was sitting there for hours telling the fighters to attack stuff while watching them be even MORE useless than before. btw the thing that made drones great in pvp, was that you could still get them to attack even if your sitting with an arazu on you going :P and no, i wont believe any ship without remote sensor linking will be able to target **** with an arazu jamming them
and only 5 drones at a time makes a carrier almost pointless, these ships are better than battleships at killing stuff, but your just going to make them about useless unless they get a massve bonus to drone damage. consider this... a moros with its 50% per bonus level to drone hp and damage getting potentially a 250% bonus to damage (effectivly 12.5 heavy drones) will be 2.5 times better than a carrier with drones, if this is going to happen carriers need to be able to deploy a lot more drones to give to more people, we need cheaper fighters that dont cost 100 mill to come close to a noob BS and more high slots for remote rep wouldnt be bad either. oh and since carriers are going to be **** anyways, you might as well give them better tarhgetting so they can actuly give support to other ships and not sit there going im damped, yay
dear god this is just upsetting, this is the worst idea i have seen in a long long time
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 .. 93 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |