| Author |
Topic |
Mark Starkiller
Caldari
Spricer
Raiden. |
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:44:00 - [ 721]
*mark Starkiller like his carrier how it is. And he trained so long for it. *Mark Starkiller looks at his carrier and start to cry  |
Ztrain
Versatech Co.
Blade. |
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:45:00 - [ 722]
Edited by: Ztrain on 21/10/2007 18:46:12
Well the only saving grace here is that in about a year or just overs time it won't really matter what CCP does. In that time there will be at least 4 space MMOs of slightly different flavors ether in release or in late beta. One of which I know the dev's working on and it will be a very well thought out product. In fact devs from other companies do play EVE and are actively watching the Revelations expansions to see exactly what not to do.
The only reason why CCP is able to get away with this lack of ability is because of the current MMOs lack of sci-fi options in MMOs. Don't worry though rest assured soon if you don't like what these twits think up a superior game will be just a double click away.
Z |
Brungar
Caldari
Best Path Inc.
Atlas Alliance |
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:45:00 - [ 723]
Thanks. Spent a year training up for carriers, only to see them nerfed into oblivion by some clueless nerfbat?  Thanks, again. Can I get a refund for the second account I got for this express purpose, for a year? 12*15$=300$. Please transfer to my bank account. Oh, do you realise that where there USED to be a reason to take carriers to the firing line (and risk losing them), this turns carriers into boring ****s that only hug the POS and delegate their fighters. Next time please think first? Best regards, Brungar |
Galldar
The Python Cartel.
The Jerk Cartel |
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:47:00 - [ 724]
Nice...train up for a carrier/mom and CCP nerfs the entire offensive capability it has. Carriers die to fast as it is. Remember why you call it a "Carrier" Yes there are support ships involved. But the current servers can't handle the load for them anyways. CCP wants hugh capital fleet fights but nerfs nerfs them beyond use. I guess I'll stick with my inty. Why spend the money on a account for a carrier that can't even defend itself.  2 years and 30mill skill points later....guess I'll sell off my useless carrier toon.  |
Gyle
Caldari
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
Atlas Alliance |
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:51:00 - [ 725]
 Originally by: Brungar
Thanks. Spent a year training up for carriers, only to see them nerfed into oblivion by some clueless nerfbat?
Thanks, again. Can I get a refund for the second account I got for this express purpose, for a year? 12*15$=300$. Please transfer to my bank account.
Oh, do you realise that where there USED to be a reason to take carriers to the firing line (and risk losing them), this turns carriers into boring ****s that only hug the POS and delegate their fighters. Next time please think first?
Best regards,
Brungar
You wanna refund? in that case can ccp refund my 60 billion isk investment on my mother ship. In fact just take em out of the game and gice all mothership pilots60 bill and carrier pilots a bill. oh yeah and i have carrier five so can i have 3 months training on the skills of my choice also please |
Reaver Con |
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:51:00 - [ 726]
I cannot agree with Drdnought more. IRL a carrier does not "assign" its very valuable fighters to other ships in its "support" fleet. A carrier controls the battle field, coordinates attacks, and most importantly, maintains complete control of ALL its fighters.
Perhaps its time for Eve to look at the real world to help solve some of its "balance" issues. For example, IRL to counter a fighter, a fleet implements a tighter anti-air warfare strategy.
Because in real life, 20 fighters can and will take out an unsupported Battleship in 0.2 sec. |
Teufelhunden
Shiva
Morsus Mihi |
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:53:00 - [ 727]
Hey guys. after reading this topic carefully and considering these changes. i would have to say this is one of the worst ideas CCP has ever come up with. First i think the last nerf of Titans and MS has greatly change their ability to function in 0.0 space and we have see this with much many more MS/ Titan KMs. To nerf them this greatly would descourage any1 from wanting/ needing to fly one. the titan may still be usefull but the mother ship would pretty much become a 30bil POS. As a mother ship pilot myself, i could only say if i did see these changes come about i would sell it and use the isk for something much more useful, ie any other cap ship in the game. last i think this idea is more for the new players and not for the veterans who have been training for years for ships like these. i'm sure this idea sounds great for the pilots not in MS/carriers atm. but remember eventually u'll have the SP and the isk and want to get in one. what nerfs would u want on the ship if u were flying it? |
Clavius XIV
Auctoritan Syndicate
Curatores Veritatis Alliance |
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:54:00 - [ 728]
I think this is a brilliant change that will guide us back to balanced fleets rather than carriers being the new battleships.
Back when carriers were first released they were frequently at POS and assigning fighters. Over time they were used more on the frontlines. Did a change in firepower cause them to be used on the frontlines more? NO.
Then why would a decrease in their solo firepower suddenly send them back to hugging the POS shields? I would argue that the main contributor to carriers being on the frontlines were defense(HP)combined with more carriers in use at the same time which allowed them to make good use of spider tanking.
In the current mechanics your are better off with carriers as the backbone of your fleet, with some misc support to kill off tacklers and provide warpins/tackle.
As for what the benefit of a MS is over a carrier, its the same as it always was.. EW immunity. No worries about getting damped and jammed, you can support your gang with impunity. MS are much better suited to small gangs since they can't be shut down by enemy EW ships. In a megablob yes, MS are only marginaly more useful.
The big balance issue with carriers/MS is not lag, nor is it low sec MS, nor carriers/MS being pwnmobiles. The big issue is their design encourages them to become the eventual backbone of fleets rather than playing a supporting role. One or two MS/Carrier are no big deal. 40 carriers with minimal other offensive support is the issue. An issue that will only get worse with time. The kind of folks who should be flying Carriers are the same sort of folks who like to fly logistics ships, not the types who like to fly BS.
If these changes do go through, the nyx/thanatos bonus will need to be fixed so it applies to assigned fighters though.
|
PauZotoh Zhaan
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:55:00 - [ 729]
Originally by: Le Skunk
Edited by: Le Skunk on 21/10/2007 18:14:23
Edited by: Le Skunk on 21/10/2007 18:13:27
Originally by: Larole
Low sec mother ships have and will continued to be killed with nos nutrulizing battle ships. same as in 0.0.
If
 MOM pilot is prepared to sit on a gate for several weeks smartbmobing without an emergancy cyno and ignore attempts to catch him
and
MOM pilot is not running scouts
and
A corp with a lot of players spend several weeks planning and organising a gank.
and
Said Corp brings in a bunch of their own nigh on invincible low sec MOMS to help kill it
Then yes - once in a blue moon a MOM will die.
The proposed drone nerf is a little bit ridiculous granted, but MOMs in lowsec are monstrously overpowered and the DEVS are right to look at them. Banning them from lowsec is the OBVIOUS and much cried out for option. Its simple and efficent.
Leave carriers alone though. As much as I hate the idiots who jump them in to gank a frigate - They can and dodie in low sec.
Also to all you dummy spitting community member threatening to quit now something effecting you. I remind you of all the previous ludicrous Nerfs you sat silent on and say HA!
SKUNK
DUDE WTF you talking about? Then didnt need MS to kill MS actualy MS cant harm ms It sad ppl like you (who dont have any clue) are talking about MS, thats why CCP want to nerf them, and not only them but also carriers. |
Akira Miyamoto
Caldari
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion |
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:57:00 - [ 730]
Edited by: Akira Miyamoto on 21/10/2007 18:58:39
While this change has a well-found base logic, this is not the way to apply a fix.
With this change, a carrier has no way in hell to even minimally defend itself. And no, I'm not saying that a carrier (or mom) for that matter should be a solo pwnmobile. I don't really know that much about mom being one but I do know one thing about carriers. If you face a carrier and put few dampeners (or ecm it to hell) you WILL render it practically inert therefore forcing it to assign fighters to gang members that are not ecm'd to hell. Due to the existence of damps and ecm, I don't think carriers with more than 5 drones/fighters are really a problem as you can force the carrier to assign fighters to someone else.
By forcing a carrier/mothership pilot to micromanage fighters in the beginning of fight and during it you will make things utterly complex. Let's say if pilot A crashes, your fighters will not be doing anything for a few minutes as you might not know about the crash. After becoming aware of the situation you can assign the fighters to pilot B after finding 'pilot B', who is not using his own 5 drones already.
I'm most against at the idea of normal drone launch limitation. Why? Well you can't assign them and even if you could, the required micromanagement for normal drone assignments required would be huge. And there are many situations where a carrier can contribute to a fight with normal drones. Let's not forget that this is something that you can also counter by dampening the carrier thus making the carrier inert again.
Also, I think the current tools allow sufficient tools to repel "carrier tactics" in small gangs. In large fleets it will not matter with or without the change. I think carriers are very well balanced as they currently are because "solo carrier tactic" can be so easily destroyed. (Damps/ECM)
Concluding this (rant) I think this change (nerf) is the same as you presume a carrier to be damped and ecmed 24/7 (excluding logistics). Therefore, should this change go through, make all carriers immune to all kinds of electronic warfare (excluding warp disruption). Mkay?
edit: as I haven't had any real experience with motherships so I couldn't really comment about the changes concerning them.. |
Corrillian
Caldari
Ominous Corp
Ethereal Dawn |
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:58:00 - [ 731]
From a Risk Verses Reward point of view;
The Skills, training time, cost of the ship, Mods and fighters verses what can take down these ships does not make sense.
Carrier - say 1.5 Bil with mods, fighters to what could kill it - say 500 mil in ships
MS 30 Bil complete Verses what 1 Billion to kill it?
Will we get a refund for all the time in skills, Mods, Ship and fighter costs ?
If you are not prepared to do this, then do not change how it works after being out for so long.
The changes will increase lag, not help it.
|
Ronald Speirs
Shinra
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:59:00 - [ 732]
ok..well being a rather dedicated capital pilot i can see why you want to do this....ok that might just be a lie, no i really cant. not a good idea ccp.
when someone says carrier to me it means just that as in rl carriers deploy fighters/bombers ect...they dont have huge guns or missiles they rely on aircraft to defend itself and for offensive action too. taking that away makes the ship more useless. people invested a lot of time into making a character that can fly a capital now it seems that is getting taken away. boooo
if this is a must due to lag much like drones were a few years back then make the drone skills count for fighters and add a serious damage bonus(like 50% per level of carrier skill) to the fighters that are controlled by the carrier /mom.
this might have been suggested before but, i cant be arsed to read 25 pages of thread.
|
Han Horensii
Therapy.
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:01:00 - [ 733]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
Thanks for your input guys, there's some interesting points here. We are of course taking all your comments seriously into consideration and will reflect upon it over the next days. We will keep you up to date of our findings, now go enjoy your Sunday night slaughter.
I have no doubt the community will wait for your new proposals (maybe withdrawal of those ideas?) as it will hugely change the face of the game. starting from the business of caps and supercaps to its simple use. (and i'm against it here) |
Saituri |
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:02:00 - [ 734]
Originally by: Rusty PwnStar
Originally by: Saituri
Welcome to Eve-online
Sry BoB-online
Ah sry here is the latest, Goon-online..
Where everything gets nerfed like goons want it, have a nice day
If you had half a brain cell, you would see they don't want this either.
It's not about a BoB/Goon thing, no one wants this change.
I seem to recall certain goonswarm petition about carriers, drones and lag, feel free to correct me if you can get your half brain cell from where the sun does not shine and search for it. Eve was BoB-online when titans killed everything without risk, now its just goon-online since everything they whine about seem to get nerfed :) |
RazorCRO
Caldari
4S Corporation
Morsus Mihi |
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:04:00 - [ 735]
Ok, now when i got it off my chest, i can write something that might help...
Ok...motherships/carriers are too powerfull while solo. They are suppose to have some ships around em...cool...i agree!
Change you proposed would uttery destroy Carrier/mothership class, which is really not what you wanna do i guess.
If you cant get anything better than this, PLEASE look into the realy world warfare.
We created carriers that can WTFPWN alot of things in REAL WORLD.
But we allso created things that can WTFPWN carriers if they dont have some kind of support (for example well armed submarine or stealth bomber with guided missile).
So if you really wanna deal with carriers and moms, create something that can pwn em if they dont have support around em.
Maybe Cruiser or Battleship class stealth bomber with darn big anty carrier torps which would pwn carriers/moms, but would be too slow to kill anything else.
Solution that you propose is worst anyone could ever think of and it would not only kill carriers and moms, but it would destroy players thats pend months and months on training and getting isk. Pls....dont destroy only good SF MMORPG out there... |
Ziriam
Stupid People Always Need Killing
Insurgency |
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:04:00 - [ 736]
IMO this is retarted!!! you guys remember when u coiuld have a moros and have max skillz and fly 30 drones!!! I dont care what you say or how you say it 30 drones do more damage than 5. NOT to metion the fact of the visual sight of 30 drones coming at you vers 5...
SOO to cut the carriers in half on fighter and drone control is just plan stupid.!!
WHY? well one takes forever to lock anyone, and in combate iam not gonna let some cetpor NUB kill my 5 (100m) fighters on some SB bs. Carriers are not (super ships) they can die very easly!! Support ships can kill a carrier really quick. NOW a mother ship is a different story, maby they should have a low cap outpout or somehting??
BUT in all cases you keep killing the mainstay of carrers and gallente alltoghter!! DRONES(gallente) are like missiles(caldari) Might as well make the amarr ships have less cap and see what happens! you already jacked the carriers ability to move items (logistics) NOW u want to kill how they fight and defend them selfs.... omg ccp what you doing to this game!!
You want to improve this game *****FIX the bugs and lagg first!!*****
Then put in more ships and items.
I have been in game since beta and every time you have something good or steady you go and **** it up. or bypass the reall problems, such as bugs exploiters and Lagg and GM's or other ccp employees messing up this great game for there profit. I can rememebr when we had GNW fleet fights and NO lagg few buggs and no exploiters.
BUT that is just my opinon.
(stop messing with something that is not broke) |
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp
IT Alliance |
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:05:00 - [ 737]
Originally by: Xeliya
Edited by: Xeliya on 21/10/2007 18:43:07
If anything should change you should remove the ability to assign fighters and add the ability to keep you fighters from following people into warp.
Yup, I brought this up in the (pretty much dead where no devs read anyway) ideas forum. Its kind of ironic that CCP removes the remote DD function (which was a good thing) but want to reduce carriers to ONLY remotely assign all of their firepower (well, a good majority anyway). |
Icome4u
Caldari
28 Meows Later
Infinitas Consortium |
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:06:00 - [ 738]
CCP if you keep this nerfing bullsh*t EVE will end up like SWG. Almost no players and dead in the water.
Thats a word of warning for you CCP.
I say NO to this nerf/change and so does most of the player base.
So keep this up and you won't have anyone left in this game. Don't think it can happen? Look around at big impressive games that got to many big nerfs and now they are dead. Players can only take a certain amount of crap from Dev's, and you are just about to cross that line. |
Bellum Eternus
Gallente
The Scope
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:08:00 - [ 739]
Just to add my two bits (like there hasn't been enough 'feedback' already):
The dev team seems to have the perception that players think that Carriers need to be more of a logistics ship than a front line combat unit. This is incorrect, as 25 pages of spam has proven out.
We (I) don't have a problem with the firepower of a Carrier, or a MS for that matter. There is only one issue: lag due to the number of ships/drones on grid. All of CCPs efforts have been focused on the wrong thing here: players don't want the role/use of Carriers/MSs changed, we just don't like the lag associated with the fighter/drone clouds.
Additionally, we (I) don't like invulnerable MSs in low sec. Besides these two issues, no one really had/has a problem with the way MS/Carriers are used/operated. Why is this so difficult?
As for ideas, there are tons of them around the forums, and many players have already linked many threads as an example of what players want, and what we think are good/valid improvements.
That's pretty much it. I fly a carrier on one of my characters. If this change happens, it will be nothing more than a poor example of a jump freighter. No thanks. |
000Hunter000
Gallente
Missiles 'R' Us
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:08:00 - [ 740]
any word on this from ccp yet? 25 pages and counting and i'm reluctant to go through it all to find it if it is there  ccp, read this thread, sofar as i can tell from the 25 pages only a handfull thinks the idea could work the rest just gave u a blatant no, i think this should clear up the matter don't u? remove this silly person and remove his devblog like it never happened and we can all go back to business at hand. |
Malachon Draco
eXceeded
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:10:00 - [ 741]
I think the change is a good one, but I would also agree that it hurts MS particularly bad. I would suggest 2 other changes that doesn't give them anymore ganking power, but solidifies their role as flagships.
1. Increase the ship maintance bay of a MS to 10m m3 (titan should probably be 25-50m m3 btw in that case)
2. Give each MS the bonuses of the fleet command ship of their race in terms of warfare links. Or even double them.
|
Sidus Sarmiang
GoonWaffe |
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:10:00 - [ 742]
Wow, I guess I can get rid of my carrier account now. Come to think of it, I have another account I was using to raise money to buy a mothership, so I guess I can get rid of that one now too.
I spent over a year and a half and billions of isk getting my carrier character to where he is. He has ADI 4, Carriers 5, and fighters 5, as well as all other supporting skills. I do about as much DPS as a gank fitted BS, my only advantage is I'm not limited by range, can jump (with support), and tank a lot better. The disadvantage is I have a huge bullseye painted on me and move like a dead whale. Tell me how that's overpowered and I'll tell you I'm finding a new game. |
Ztrain
Versatech Co.
Blade. |
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:10:00 - [ 743]
Originally by: Icome4u
CCP if you keep this nerfing bullsh*t EVE will end up like SWG. Almost no players and dead in the water.
Thats a word of warning for you CCP.
I say NO to this nerf/change and so does most of the player base.
So keep this up and you won't have anyone left in this game. Don't think it can happen? Look around at big impressive games that got to many big nerfs and now they are dead. Players can only take a certain amount of crap from Dev's, and you are just about to cross that line.
Yes there are a lot of people that will not even try a game just based on who the publisher or developer is. CCP is getting to that point. If this goes through it doesn't matter how good their game will look with the new engine. They will have crossed the time/investment vs. reward line. At that point it will be more rewarding to just not play a CCP game to not have to deal with their constant nurfs. Ohh and good luck with Vampires. Z |
Rusty PwnStar
Centus Inc. |
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:12:00 - [ 744]
Originally by: Saituri
]
I seem to recall certain goonswarm petition about carriers, drones and lag, feel free to correct me if you can get your half brain cell from where the sun does not shine and search for it.
Eve was BoB-online when titans killed everything without risk, now its just goon-online since everything they whine about seem to get nerfed :)
That thread was about lag and no one in that thread suggested this idea, which I might add doesn't fix lag. You just came here to troll and prove my point, well done.  |
Skraeling Shortbus
Caldari
Final Agony
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:13:00 - [ 745]
Glad I have not bothered training for a capital. |
Tavernier
MELLOW HUNTERS
RED.OverLord |
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:16:00 - [ 746]
Seems CCP like heavy drugs… |
Yaay
Fusion Enterprises Ltd |
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:16:00 - [ 747]
Edited by: Yaay on 21/10/2007 19:18:00 Originally by: CCP Zulupark
Thanks for your input guys, there's some interesting points here. We are of course taking all your comments seriously into consideration and will reflect upon it over the next days. We will keep you up to date of our findings, now go enjoy your Sunday night slaughter.
roughly 625 post on this topic. maybe 25 of those support you... the other 600 are raging ****ed off customers that are very upset you even mocked us with such an ill concieved and ill advised idea that should have never made it to the web page. Not one Sorry from the developers? Maybe you don't understand just how much you ****ed off a good chunk of your player base today. Maybe I'm clueless, but if memory serve me well, EVE has never, ever seen such an uprising from it's community like they have today... Not even close. |
Xa'ar Kun
Knights of Chaos
Chaos Incarnate. |
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:16:00 - [ 748]
Edited by: Xa''ar Kun on 21/10/2007 19:18:26
Long story short this is by Far the most ******ed blog i have heard of why dont we just allow carriers to assign fighters at a pos again as well isnt that what your saying is the best for ever have people buy really expensive ships and NEVER have any risk of losing the ship. Aside from that the realistic RP side of it how could you not be able to control a wing of 20 people to ATTACK ONE THING. Dumbest thing EVER
p.s. *changes ingame skill training* |
Kadka
STK Scientific
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:16:00 - [ 749]
Thank you CCP for ruining the last 6 months of my skill training. Now carriers/motherships won't even be able to properly defend themselves, which essentially makes them less valuable than a logistics ship in combat, because the logistics ship can warp and target faster. Screw tanking, that's already been nerfed. I really miss the days when supercaps were indeed super. Why not let the playerbase find ways around things like lowsec mom camping (props to x13), instead of grabbing beautiful ships by the scruff and beating/nerfing the crap out of them? Carriers are back to pos sitting...OH WAIT, they can't do that either. And with the advent of the jump freighter, what purpose will they have at all? Way to ruin a wonderful class of ships. |
Neo Harald
The All-Seeing Eye
G00DFELLAS |
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:17:00 - [ 750]
Do not make this nerf, please. |
All Channels
EVE Information Portal
