open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked Supercaps, Caps, Drones and Fighters, a New Zulupark Blog
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (110)

Author Topic

CCP Wrangler

Posted - 2007.10.21 10:50:00 - [1]

Making changes to EVE can be an easy or a difficult task, and a change that one person likes might not be palatable to someone else. However, these changes are made with the overall game in mind.

Zulupark makes his introductory Dev Blog from his new position in the Game Design team. Following in the footsteps of TomB and Tuxford, Zulu is now working on balancing different elements of EVE and one of the first projects he gets to work on is the relationship between Supercapitals, Fighters and Drones. Be gentle on him, he's got a tough one!

Fighters, Drones, Supercapitals and control. What's being considered? Check out Capital ships in EVE, what's up doc?.

Otherworld Enterprises
Otherworld Empire
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:02:00 - [2]

Interesting times ahead...

Stellar Vix
State War Academy
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:02:00 - [3]

Edited by: Stellar Vix on 21/10/2007 11:14:47

Wow chibbera beat me by a few seconds :(.

Anyways wouldnt there be issues with this I mean for example

Mom ship can launch 20 fighters
She gives 5 to timmy
she gives 5 to cartman
and she gives 5 to Kyle
and keeps 5 to herself.

timmy gets killed and carman runs away from the system and kyle did not want the fighters and gives them back what happense to these figthers do they go back into the hanger bay directly (imo the best solution?)

Also are we ever going to get alternative types of fighters like oh say bombers used for anti-bigger than-a-battleship-fighter and maybe toy around with 'formations' a planned feature to be used on players which consists of grouping similar ships and ship roles to give that small gange a specail bonus for being that type of group and have thier HP shared?

as for the support thing why not another module that creates a field that repairs nearby units modules, hull, armor and shields thats deployed during triage mode that might be for motherships only or carrier if you like. A special ability for being in the backlines while thier ecm burst cannon is used for the front lines.

Privateer Alliance
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:04:00 - [4]

Oh dear

Posted - 2007.10.21 11:07:00 - [5]

Edited by: Bentula on 21/10/2007 11:08:43
I am atm training for carriers, and i can only say that this is how i always envisioned them to be. Extremely proficant support ships, that increase the efficency of the gang it is with.

Edit: What worries me though is that assigning fighters could become much of a hassle, i.e. with people dieing and warping out you find yourself doing nothing but delegating fighters.

Erasers inc.
Controlled Chaos
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:08:00 - [6]

Limiting the amount of normal drones to 5 from a ship like carrier sounds a bit too much.

Mashie Saldana
Veto Corp
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:08:00 - [7]

Sweet, this is definitely a move in the right direction.

Marrie Antionette
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:09:00 - [8]

does the 5 not include drone control links?

Dan Grobag
Grobag's Family
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:10:00 - [9]

10 normal drone was cool for doing all sort of stuff. What about drone control unit ?

Chickens with an Attitude
Dark Solar Empire
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:12:00 - [10]

I personally think this COULD be a nice idea, but it needs some serious look at the prices of fighters. I personally fly a carrier for about 11 months now and i have never asigned fighters to a gangm8. Simply because i am not gonna let somebody play with my 100M if those little things get destroyed in seconds. In 0.0 i can see how it works, but as low sec pirate, nah. Sentries kill those things way to fast to let other peepz play with them.

The idea is okay, but if prices of fighters will not be lowered it will become a isk-sink for low sec carrier pilots.

Contraband Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:13:00 - [11]

My question is why anyone would field a mothership instead of a carrier if those changes make it?

It seems to be totally brainless, if that is the case, since the amount of firepower will be the same and the amount of remote rep/shield transfers/etc will be the same as a carrier. It will basically mean that it will make a mothership about 30 times more expensive than a carrier and have exactly the same function in every single aspect.

When taking a look at the assigning potential aspect of carriers/motherships it again doesnt make sense as battleships allready have their drone bays as well as almost all cruisers that are short/medium range (drone range) and this will not have any use for the fighters (since they allready have their own drones).
The only shipclass that you would want to assigning fighters to are frigs/interceptors, that are so flimsy that you will most likely not have time to assign fighters fast enough in a fleet condition. Add to this that a carrier exteremly seldom have time to lock a gang mate to rep them before they pop as it is.

I conclusion, in theory this is a great idea but converted to practice, it only renders motherships totally useless (compared to a carrier) and carriers almost useless (unless you boost scan resolution to like 1000mm so that they can instalock friendlies in need of reppage)

Rodamus Zero
Clans of the Sanctums
Quantum Decadence
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:13:00 - [12]

Edited by: Rodamus Zero on 21/10/2007 11:17:04
Why not simply increase the signature resolution and decrease tracking on Fighters.

That would mean they become much more anti capital drones (seeing as they are the only carriers/Moms defense agaisnt other capitals save for support) and have a slightly harder time agaisnts battleships and anything smaller.

If a carrier is unable to punch out all 15 drones (for instance) what does this do for logistics and combat utility drones such as webber drones and target painter drones?

Another point on fighters directly, why do they have the same sized signature radius as heavy drones when they are clearly much bigger in size? given the fact that an increase would make them alot more vunerable to any type of offensive attack, it just seems strange that they are the same and dont fall inline with Light/Scouts < Medium < Heavies.

If its only Fighters/Drones and Supercaps that are being looked at, how would the new ships and modules coming in REV 3 effect them? Speculations aside, though it appears that they alone could possible change the face of capitals, let alone Supercaps.

Also, the very "much talked about" Bandwidth, what will that do to the drone heavy carriers/motherships?

Posted - 2007.10.21 11:16:00 - [13]

I like it.

Should stop the empire Moms being such a pain in the ass too.

Mashie Saldana
Veto Corp
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:16:00 - [14]

Originally by: Dan Grobag
10 normal drone was cool for doing all sort of stuff. What about drone control unit ?

I would guess they only will affect the number of fighters you can assign and not affect the number of normal drones at all.

Law Enforcer
Still Undecided
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:18:00 - [15]

just increase the cost of a carrier/mom if you want less people to be flying around in them.
nerfing them to five fighters is just a bad idea.
what happens if the support fleet gets wiped out and you have four/six battleships on you and you KNOW you could have killed them.
but you magically cannot control more then five fighters even though a carrier should have the logistic capabilities to run an entire city because ccp says so.
it defeats the role of a carrier.
a carrier is a platform to launch and control all of its fighters and if it can't do that you better rename them to something else.

Posted - 2007.10.21 11:18:00 - [16]

I've been watching the growing replacement of battleships in gangs with carriers and we jokingly refer to it as

This should make it less a "how many capitals can we field" and more a "for each capital we field we'll need proper support".


Evil Sniper
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:19:00 - [17]

Booo, may aswell sell up the carrier then...

Pattern Clarc
Aperture Harmonics
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:21:00 - [18]

Edited by: Pattern Clarc on 21/10/2007 11:21:37
If you take from the carriers in this way, atleast give them higher cap recharge (say, 20% more) - so, you know, they can actually run there reps and stuff without capping out after 5 minutes?

Posted - 2007.10.21 11:21:00 - [19]

This idea is absolutely and utterly ******ed.

Motherships are now useless. Carriers do the exact same job, and are a hell of a lot cheaper.

Why does CCP feel the incessent need to nerf anything, that the vocal minority whine about repeatedly? I'm somewhat concerned with them following the ideals of those whom are quite vocal on the forums.

First Titans, now Motherships.

Rolling Eyes

Contraband Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:22:00 - [20]

Originally by: Zakgram
I've been watching the growing replacement of battleships in gangs with carriers and we jokingly refer to it as

This should make it less a "how many capitals can we field" and more a "for each capital we field we'll need proper support".


In one sense you are right, that more people fly capital ships when they can, but at the same time in 100% of the cases that I have been in an MC cap fleet and we have chosen not to engage something it has never ever been because we have had to few capital ships and every single time it has been because we didnt have a support fleet to match the enemies.

In short, there needs to be a limiting factor so that you cant run 100% carriers and nothing else, but to gimp their MAIN ROLE is, imho, absolutely counter propductive. I guess what will happen is that people will melt down all the carriers and motherships and build titans instead and then youll face 20vs20 titans instad, and I promise you that that will be MUCH more boring.

Caiman Graystock
Cornelius Starship and Computer Design
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:24:00 - [21]

CCP Zulupark: (I still haven't received a nerfbat though).

I think you just got the biggest one in the office with this blog... Twisted Evil

Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:25:00 - [22]

Edited by: Phoenus on 21/10/2007 11:25:49
I'm somewhat concerned with the direction that CCP seems to be taking with this, to be honest.

You are taking away what little fun remains in this game. Solo/small scale PVP is almost none existant. Titans are nerfed beyond recognition, and now you are considering doing the same for Carriers/Motherships.

Are you trying to encourage blobbing, by appeasing the small number of whiners on the forums?

EDIT: Bad spelling

Juno II
North Star Networks
Executive Outcomes
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:27:00 - [23]

Edited by: Juno II on 22/10/2007 09:56:07

I thought Carriers was the main ship in modern warfare battlegroups. with 1-2 subs and destroyers definding it.

Well this may be EVE. But i don't like the Carrier/MS going towards the logistic side of things. I think instead you should CHANGE the drones. To BOMBER Fighters.

Slow missiles that do ALOT of dmg. missiles/bombs should have 1000 sig res, and towars a BS that has 400 sig.rad it would't do that much dmg. But still be a VERY good threat!

The bomber drones should BE bigg like frigates and should be a little slower then they are now.

ITS A CARRIER _with_ repair abilities. Not a repair carrier with _some_ drone stuff.
Please think of my idea!.

Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:28:00 - [24]

Originally by: Pattern Clarc
Edited by: Pattern Clarc on 21/10/2007 11:22:40
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.

Looks like goons are gunna get there way again....

This is terrible news.

Caiman Graystock
Cornelius Starship and Computer Design
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:30:00 - [25]

I can totally understand the want for cap/supercaps not be solowtfpwn machines, really- but is this yet another change which makes it harder for the smaller guys? Everything seems to be going in favour of the large corps/alliances who can take on board a nerf like this and field massive support fleets. The rich get richer...

Zer0 T0lerance
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:30:00 - [26]

Edited by: Zer0 T0lerance on 21/10/2007 11:32:15
Hi, Im Zulupark and recently transferred from the Quality Assurance department to the Game Design team

Seriously, what are you thinking?

It is not ok for a mothership (that cost the player a fortune) to wtfpwnbbqinstapop a battleship, but it is ok for a couple of battleships to gank a mothership?
Instead of saying that a mothership should not be allowed to survive without support, you may wanna look at it from the other side: a player fielding a 30+ Billion isk ship (one he can not even insure since he can not dock it) should be able to solo kill a battleship. On the other hand, it should take more than one dictor and say 3-4 battleships to reverse those roles.
What you are suggestion is -- pardon my french -- ridiculous!


edited: the one point I do see however, is that you may want to restrict supercapitals to 0.0

Please keep it polite - Jacques

Huang Yinglong
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:30:00 - [27]

Edited by: MotherMoon on 21/10/2007 12:26:50
Edited by: MotherMoon on 21/10/2007 12:10:25
first of all a titan gives out a bonus of 40% cap to all fleet mates, useless my ***.

now on to carriers :)
I like this idea, The only thing I that with this change you need to think for a moment. I will try to put down these ideas in a clear logical way.
I bet most people will flame me, but I'm not saying these are all the best idea ever, just things that come to mind that might be helpful. take them with a grain of salt.

the idea is to make motherships and carriers different.
at the moment the only differnce is the tank and the fact that a mothership can do more dps on it's own.
with the changes a carrier and mothership would have the same dps, unless they had more support.
motherships, and carriers,
Why do you have to push both of these guys in the same direction? With the upcoming change drone bandwidth you could do lots of fun things to keep people happy.
(these are only ideas)
-For one, Make it so that when a mothership assigns fighters to someone it takes up that persons bandwidth. Now change the fighters drone bay so that they can send out as many fighters as they have space to carry. The number they can have out would be dependent on the number of ships in the fleet and their bandwidth. This would make the mothership a ship to be feared logistically, because having one in system would make it a powerhouse, replacing drone ships drones with fighters of doom.
-I'm talking 40/50 fighters here
-do not allow for the Mothership it's self to deploy fighters
-let them fit capital weapons, I'm talking fit 2 guns not much.
-allow for fighters to have a range in Ly (many .5? 1?)
-Give motherships the ability to have their gang bonuses reach out to fighters anywhere in space, but not reach out to gang mates.
-don't allow for a mothership to launch fighters and use them on it's own (scary I know)
-allow mothership the ability to deploy fully set up, fueled POS Towers

Now, look at carriers differently,
-As smaller ships these ships should be based more on forward logistical support
-They should be able to have other people dock in them and wait, and then undock (is there a programing flaw that makes this hard? I have a feeling there might be)
-allow them to control 10 fighters,(with carrier level5 or some skill) this is not a mothership, but a forward attack vessel.
-lower the number of fighters they can carry to 20.
-Remove the bonuses to cap repping (they can still fit them) and give them bonuses to medium reps, prefect for healing it's own fighters.
- increase there speed a bit (5-15m/s)
- Give them very nice fleet bonuses like titans get, making people want to use them.
-let these suckers rep any ship, but get a bonus when repping the fighters only.
-give them bonuses to gang mods?

-they need to be cheaper if they are going to be shot all over the place
-maybe look at balancing them to be in line with the larger assault ship? Somehow a ship smaller than a wolf with one person piloting it should not cost as much as a wolf)
- I liked the idea with heavy missiles which got me thinking, Maybe fighters could have switchable weapons systems?
or because a person is flying each of them, they could fire there heavy weapons at battleships and when they see drones they could be ordered to gun them down and be turned to kill drone/fighter mode??
-more HP, more tracking, less damage? make them tough drones that deal good damage.

I don't know that's my 4 am brain ower for you. I'm sure someone will hate me forever now :PCool

I almost forgot the most important part!!
Change the drone/fighter UI before you do this or the fact that's hard to control will be factored into the ships dps

Posted - 2007.10.21 11:30:00 - [28]

Edited by: Treelox on 22/10/2007 01:46:02
Edited by: Treelox on 22/10/2007 01:39:49
Edited by: Treelox on 21/10/2007 12:12:37
/me looks at calender

Umm....its not april....


Ok now that im no longer speechless from this blog....something a bit more constructive.

Originally by: Zulupark
But seriously, the reason we want to implement something like this is that we feel that capital ships are being used way too much as better-than-battleships-at-killing-stuff ships, when we in fact think that they should be used more as the-ships-that-keep-other-ships-alive-and-provide-them-with-additional-firepower ships.

If this is what you really wish to achive then address the logistics issues, not tweak with the offensive. It seems that whole point of your blog is that you want to see Carriers and Moms in a more supporting role.

Ok, so maybe the question you at CCP should be asking yourselves is why with current mechanics Carriers and Moms arent used as logistics ships enough for YOUR perception of how the ship types should play(sort of killing the open sandbox concept). Firstly if these ships are supposed to be using transfer arrays, maybe a look should be instead at making it an easier task for the pilot, things like;

  • Quicker targetting of gangmates.

  • Better Effiecency of the Triage Module. Not sure what to tweak with it exactly, but there must be something "wrong" with it if even the few "logistical" carriers I have seen dont even fit it.

  • Improvements to the overview, and better target management tools. Not going to go into details, because there are thousands of great ideas that have already been posted a multitude of threads. I am sure that a vast majority of the player base would agree that improvements in overview and targetmanagement tools, are needed regardless of how this proposed nerf of carriers goes.

Of course the most important thing that needs to be fixed to help Carriers and Motherships do this purely "Logistical" role, is Lag and Desync. I know this is easier said than done, every online game has lag, it never goes away, but its a valid issue in why Carriers and Motherships arent currently being used in a logistical fucntion as much as you would wish for. Its damm hard to try and keep up with peoples "healthbars" when your client isnt loading the whole field of battle, and module activation is around 60seconds, think about that. I know myself that I have witnessed "phantom repping" where the ship with the repper is repair a 2nd ship, and that second ships pilot is already reading his Concord and Insurance mails.

Hope that was constructive enough for you all.

2nd Edit..found this post later on in the thread that I think CCP needs to really read. Maybe its a bit brash, but it is the truth.

Law Enforcer
Still Undecided
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:31:00 - [29]

Edited by: Law Enforcer on 21/10/2007 11:32:53
instead of making them useless like you made titans.

only allow them to launch all their fighters if they're GANGED with two or more battleships and just say it needs the extra logistics the battleships provide.
forcing them to assign fighters to other ships to use them though is absolutely absurd.

edit: and leave motherships alone. *takes nerf bat away from you*

Virtual Warriors
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:33:00 - [30]

Guys.... we are talking about carriers here yes ? 10 times the price of a typical battleship.... months more of skill training.... the whole point of a carrier is its superior fighter and drone carrying power as well as its support capabilities. If it is to be stepped down to just a support vessel, I as well as many others Im sure, are going to have to rethink its value when compared with the training time required as well as the large ISK investment. A carrier is a tactical vessel first and a support vessel second and we cant go nerfing It because it is successful at what it was designed to do. If We need to change the balance then we need to do the same as we would do in the real world when faced with a superior weapon.....invent something that can disable it easier.......

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (110)

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to

These forums are archived and read-only