| Author |
Topic |
Ben Murder
Priory Of The Lemon
Atlas Alliance |
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:09:00 - [ 1021]
Edited by: Ben Murder on 21/10/2007 22:10:44
This idea deserves a nerf bat to the head of you devs why don't you fix bigger problems like the remaining game bugs before even thinking of nerfing another ship class. I see now why it takes 3 years for you to get back to our petitions your wasting it coming up with ideas that in my honest opinion don't make sense. Balancing sounds nice and all but I'm not for this one bit. |
Baun
4S Corporation
Morsus Mihi |
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:10:00 - [ 1022]
The most hilarious part of this suggestion is that even though carriers and motherships are extremely vulnerable NOW, CCP is introducing a new heavier interdictor class.
This change is being proposed before carriers/MS are made even weaker by the introduction of that class and we actually see the effects that that change has. What are they thinking? |
Kerfira
Kerfira Corp |
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:11:00 - [ 1023]
Edited by: Kerfira on 21/10/2007 22:13:07
I advise Zulupark to actually play the game for a bit (in 0.0, not in carebear country), because he just displayed total ignorance to how things actually work.....
A change along these lines will simply make nobody fly carriers/mommas since they'll not be worth the ISK or training time.
Look at the battles actually going on. You'll NOT see capital fleets obliterating normal fleets. What you'll see at maximum is maybe 50-60 capitals, supported by 200-300 smaller ships (note: your game can't handle this of.c., but your other recent stupid POS changes mandates blobs), fighting fleets of the same caliber. The cap fleets ALREADY NEED the support fleet or they'll fail horribly, yet this is the objective you claim to pursue....
Ok, so your opinion might be that 50-60 is too much. Well, look at the cause for it! All the POS warfare changes you've done in the 2-3 last expansions have ALL seemed as they were DESIGNED to encourage blobbing, something your game quite frankly can't support!
Fix POS warfare!
Fix blobbing!
Fix lag!
THOSE are the problems that should warrant your attention. Not removal (yes, you are EFFECTIVELY suggesting that) of something that is already fairly well balanced (apart from mommies low-sec invulnerability).
If you want people to fly smaller ships, simply remove insurance in 0.0.
|
Muder Alt |
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:12:00 - [ 1024]
 Originally by: Baun
The most hilarious part of this suggestion is that even though carriers and motherships are extremely vulnerable NOW, CCP is introducing a new heavier interdictor class.
This change is being proposed before carriers/MS are made even weaker by the introduction of that class and we actually see the effects that that change has. What are they thinking?
Thinking hmm I see too much of that just about the wrong stuff. |
Adamus TorK
Amarr
HUN Corp.
HUN Reloaded |
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:13:00 - [ 1025]
I don't like this idea.
Beacuse: I sense no logic. |
Yorda
Battlestars
GoonSwarm |
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:13:00 - [ 1026]
Edited by: Yorda on 21/10/2007 22:22:02
Refresh thread for piping hot rage™
Ok, CCP should really just sit down and chat about why 95% of Eve thinks this is terrible and then make a new Developer Blog explaining what problem you're concerned about and trying to fix actually is. Then look for feedback there. We goons are pro forum *****s so take this advice from a Professional on the matter.
I think the problem is low sec gankers. And fighter lag maybe? Maybe its a concern about the long term dynamics of the game and fleet warfare? Ship inflation? As it stands now no one is really sure what is on your (CCPs) mind but the N-word has been mentioned next to a half baked idea so we are all plenty scared you're going to do something stupid to the game we like enough to pay for...
I think you would be pleasantly surprised at how helpful people would be on this matter. Close this thread when you have a dev blog prepared that really tries to address the issue. Hopefully that will change the tone of the discourse.
:f5: |
Callitari Mundani
The Antilles Legion
Quantum Star Alliance |
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:13:00 - [ 1027]
Originally by: Reticenti
1000th post btw
w007 |
Smith
Caldari
Destructive Influence
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:15:00 - [ 1028]
Why not just remove Carriers and Motherships from the game? Same effect tbh. |
Cadela Fria
Amarr
x13
Raiden. |
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:15:00 - [ 1029]
Edited by: Cadela Fria on 21/10/2007 22:20:56 Originally by: Pallidum Treponema
Edited by: Pallidum Treponema on 21/10/2007 21:59:16
Originally by: R1pp3r
Some of you don't recognize that carriers are fast replacing bs on the battle field. It is extremely frustrating in small group warfare to have a bunch of carriers and a mothership or 2 dropped on you as soon as your group agresses.
Now, THIS is a good point. I can definitely see how this can be an issue that needs to be adressed. In my opinion though, CCP is doing this completely in the wrong way.
You had me stopped and going "WHAT???" at this sentence alone Palli, and R1pp3r's post didn't help. So tell, on the matter of lag, which is better: 1. 2 battleships, open cyno, add 3 carriers..or 1 mothership or! 2. 50 battleships Please do reason your way out of that one. Also, I'm tired of the the whole argument about carriers and motherships having to be more support ships. Look for christ sake it was CCP who, a year ago, maybe less, said "We want carriers and motherships to step up to the frontlines and fight!" and thus introduced the <no pos hugging and delegating fighters!> dealie. Great, awesome..Now you want them back at POS'es basically. I'm sorry but this occurs to me as "1 step forward, 2 steps back". Secondly, what in the WORLD is up with all this balancing crap in the first place? Haven't we had enough of that already? Look at what it did Amarr reconships, or look what balancing did to other games, like Planetside..or SWG, or ULTIMA ONLINE! The first love of my life in MMORPG'ing, RUINED, because some goobers decided it was a good idea to give everyone a fair, even playing ground. IT'S FLAVOR YOU'RE KILLING FOR GODS SAKE! (sorry about the caps, but I can't say this enough). Things are not supposed to be in perfect balance and be equal, and fair, or soft and mushy on the whole world. It's supposed to be exciting, challenging - Make you take a risk for once in your otherwise reptitive EVE Life! You don't always need a comfy world where everything isn't a big thing that can't be dealt with without too much effort. I personally NEED the feeling of "z0mG *flailing arms* it's a mothership! Run! *trips cause pants drop* ARGH! *crawls away in panic*" with the end result of me magically surviving the incident, or going down burning. It gives the game FLAVOR! Gives it life and charm. Whether or not ya'll think I'm right or I'm just spewing crap out of my mouth, I firmly believe that an unbalanced world where some things are powerful beyond reason above other gives you a horizon to try and beat it by unimaginable odds, think creatively and forge friendship/alliances to bring whatever it is, down. What will you strive for with things such as this in place? Certainly not capital ships. "Argh a mothership!" Response: So what? Can't do anything "But..the name..it's size..the amount of fighters it has!..it's intimidating!" Reponse: Uh..nope, not anymore. *yawn* someone get a dictor, we'll take it down in a sec. "*completely disillusioned*...oh...but I thought...I..oh .." Response: Yeah well you thought wrong, wouldn't be balanced if such an awesome ship could fend for itself now would it. How much does a carrier cost to build? 650 mil? 700 mil? How much does it cost to build a HAC? 30..40 mil? something like that? Divide that up and you have 16 HACs vs 1 carrier - Who wins? Pure hypothetically it's 1 carrier vs 16 HACs, thats it. Who wins? For the love of all that is left great about EVE, Don't even consider alternatives for this, just SCRAP IT, PLEASE. Balanced - Is - BORING!! Period! |
Ferocious FeAr
THE FINAL STAND
Everto Rex Regis |
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:15:00 - [ 1030]
Well I'm glad I decided not to train for capital ships. Shame on you CCP for even thinking about doing this. Many skill points and the time spent training will be put to waste if this goes through, I feel bad for those pilots. |
Athanasios Anastasiou
The Illuminati.
Pandemic Legion |
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:16:00 - [ 1031]
This is worse then then idea about closing the sell forums, and that says a lot.
|
Captain Plumbo
Plan- og Bygningsetaten |
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:18:00 - [ 1032]
About capitals being overpowered in lowsec: just make it impossible to cyno out within a certain distance to a warpgate, like 50km. The warpgate jumpfield interferes with the cyno jump field or something... I think this will make it a lot less attractive to gatecamp with a smartbomb gank mom. |
Ferina Severen
ANZAC ALLIANCE |
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:18:00 - [ 1033]
The most hilarious part about all this besides the fact that it is a stupid idea is that it will only lead to even more blobbing since people will have to bring even more people they can assign their fighters to.
Why do you love the blob so much? Why do you say you don't want blobbing and will try to make small scale warfare more important. Then you introduce cyno jammers that take a MASSIVE BS blob to take out.
Then you give us bombers as anti blob weapon. Has any of you devs flown a bomber lately? I give you a small hint: They are totally and utterly useless.
Now to the real funny part: A while ago you guys wanted to get the carriers out of POS right into the battlefield. Now you wanna change them so they can only sit at a POS assigning fighters to frigates. You guys are brilliant!
Watching the changes lately one gets the impression there is a monkey sitting in a room hitting random buttons instead of devs actually thinking of improving the game. |
Kerfira
Kerfira Corp |
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:20:00 - [ 1034]
Originally by: Ferina Severen
Watching the changes lately one gets the impression there is a monkey sitting in a room hitting random buttons instead of devs actually thinking of improving the game.
Possibly my post is missing content, but...... QFT QFT QFT!!!! |
Malachon Draco
eXceeded
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:21:00 - [ 1035]
Like I said earlier, I don't think it is a bad idea. And all you people screaming bloody murder, what did you think CCP would do after some alliances showed up with 50+ carriers and 10+ motherships? Any newer player looking at the game will say **** it, it takes at least a year or more to train for any of those ships, and without it I will be useless.
So I think a counter to the 'capital ships online' is a very good idea. Though it does not necessarily have to be a nerf of carriers/MS.
A few alternatives exist:
- Capital smartbombs for dreads (to wipe out the fighterswarm in a few blasts)
- A ship between BS and carrier to lessen the gap. Ideally something like a pocket dreadnaught, capable of using gates but with the firepower of 2-3 BS.
- A few BS sized ships with bonuses to neutralizing range and amount, to be able to suck capitals dry.
- Specific warpscramblers usable against Motherships. Just make one that only fits on a BS or bigger. That way you force the MS to actually bring support to clear enemy tackling BS. |
Torshin
Fairlight Corp
Rooks and Kings |
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:21:00 - [ 1036]
I know that cost effectiveness is something over looked by devs and shouldn't be a major issue but from what I am reading if a Mothership is supporting its fleet and all of its support is destroyed and 10 enemy battleships remain and 2 interdictors you are going to make it so that mothership can only control 5 fighters?
A mothership should be able to defend ourselves, you already have the rorqual and the jump capable frieghter for hauling POS gear. |
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp
IT Alliance |
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:22:00 - [ 1037]
Originally by: Cadela Fria
Things are not supposed to be in perfect balance and be equal, and fair, or soft and mushy on the whole world. It's supposed to be exciting, challenging - Make you take a risk for once in your otherwise reptitive EVE Life!
You don't always need a comfy world where everything isn't a big thing that can't be dealt with without too much effort.
I personally NEED the feeling of "z0mG *flailing arms* it's a mothership! Run! *trips cause pants drop* ARGH! *crawls away in panic*" with the end result of me magically surviving the incident, or going down burning.
VERY good points and one I had not thought about. I think CCP is forgetting the point of having the fear shoot through you when all the sudden you see a carrier or a mothership drop in on you. |
Lucifer66
Gallente
Warriors Of The Abyss
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:22:00 - [ 1038]
It never ceases to amaze me how many bad ideas come from the devs in eve. Is there some kinda contest to see who can come up with the most stupid idea in the dev dept?
Carriers are CAPITAL ships. They require intense skill training. Therefore they should have awsome firepower to make all that skill training worth while. Nerfing them to being no better than a battleship is ******ed. Acually I think they should be given a boost not a nerf because as it is now once the fighters are blown up they are totally defensless because they have no other weapon. Whereas a battleship still has guns.
Honestly, have you ever seen an aircraft carrier that has no guns at all on it? Hell no cuz no military in the world would spend billions on a ship that is so easily dissabled. Aircraft carriers have loads of guns and missiles mounted on them. Including 3 or 4 of the Navy's Phalanx CIWS system which fires 20mm depleted uranium cannon rounds at 4500 rounds per minute to shootdown incoming missiles. (that spaces them about 1 inch behind the next depleted uranium round while they are flying through the air...ouch!) And BTW the current US Nimitz class carriers have 85 planes on board...not 5 :p Yeah sure some ppl will cry cuz this is a real life comparison, however do ppl get really stupid in the future in EVE? (maybe they find the devs stash of stupid pills in a time capsule or something)
Yes it is a capital ship...
Yes it has alot of fighters and drones...
No you cannot single handedly take it down with an ibis...(unless of course the pilot is afk mining in it having found said time capsule)
|
LordVodka
Earned In Blood
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:24:00 - [ 1039]
|
GRIM REAPERjib |
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:28:00 - [ 1040]
Edited by: GRIM REAPERjib on 21/10/2007 22:29:43
I actually fly a carrier and have done so in fleet and pos ops.
1. carriers are slow, have long lock times, can be bumped off a docking station (nano phoon) and killed (neut bs's), have crap defense (if this nerf comes)
2.have fitting issues (shield tanked niddy cant fit 2x dcu's and 2x remote shield reps, not even close eg, 157 cpu short and has a empty high slot !!!
even with a armor tank its over on cpu or you have a empty high slot (no smart bomb)
i think alot of other carries may have fitting issues but i havent flown them(the other 3) so i cant say
3. i don't see why this change is needed , can we have some insight as to why this needs to be done. and after this nerf why not fly a logistics cruiser, its more portable, ALOT cheaper and will do the same as 1 capital rep if not better, has hac level resists.
Heck with max skills a basilisk can push over 2k hp every 5seconds. (you can purchase 38 logistics ships for 1 carrier, 1 carrier can sustain about 1.55x the reping amount (2100 vs 3700 for max basilisk vs max niddy) however the carrier is more vulnerable and is more of an investment (isk, skills, time)
4. drones are fine unless you want to restrict all classes and drones to something like, PS this would be the more stupidest change ever if it were to take place
frigs and destroyers 2 light drones
cruisers 4 lights or 2 medium
battle cruisers 5 lights or 4 mediums
battleships 5 mediums or 2 heavy
dread 5 medium or 5 heavy
carriers 5 heavy or 5 fighter
mother ship 10 heavy or 10 fighter. |
Deacon Ix
Volition Cult
-Mostly Harmless- |
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:29:00 - [ 1041]
Originally by: LordVodka
strategos you really have no idea what your talking about. I both fly carriers and battleships, and i can EASILY tank 90% of the carriers fielded. You should realize with good skills most fighter loads do a mere 900 dps, this can easily be tanked in a drake even.
you need to understand that the fighters wont hit for max dps cause of tracking sig etc. So when a fighter load does a 900 dps on paper it's like 700 on the field and easily tankable by any bs pilot who has a clue.
QFT I had a corp mate who decided to have a go against a carrier in a BS, he dicided to take the p*ss a bit and tanked the fighters untill he was out of disrupter range at which point he warped off. |
Silver Wizard |
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:30:00 - [ 1042]
What about the people that ARENT in huge corps ? What about those of us that SINGLE handedly made ALL the money for a carrier by ourselves. Those of us that play solo 90% of the time. We put in the SAME time training, and work 10 times harder to afford a carrier. Now I wont be able to use it by myself? |
Ar'tee
DarkStar 1
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:32:00 - [ 1043]
Q: Will the proposed changes help reduce lag?A: In no way whatsoever. Q: Are the proposed changes thus completely irrelevant?A: Yes. Fixing lag should be priority #1 at CCP. In fact you guys should likely drop everything else and fix the basic game mechanics behind (at least) fighters and drones, but likely between ship interactions in space altogether (collisions etc.) The current model very obviously doesn't scale to the current number of players. Adding more hardware does not solve this (and never will). Addressing this #1 issue will resolve both the current Jita debacle (*waves to the ca. 1000 players stuck in Jita right now*  ), as well as a lot of the lag issues in 0.0 combat. |
Snakebloke
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas. |
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:34:00 - [ 1044]
yawn, its pretty clear that this is a dead issue. CCP will clearly NOT put this into effect because it would be like saying slavery is legal again, lets send some boats over to Nigeria (well maybe not quite that bad but u get the picture  ) |
LUH 3471 |
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:37:00 - [ 1045]
Edited by: LUH 3471 on 21/10/2007 22:50:47
bad bad bad idea
carriers are already weak considering their price and training needed
they can so easily be damped and/or jammed
ccp this is fail fail fail fail fail
|
Nagatok
PROGENITOR CORPORATION
Intrepid Crossing |
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:38:00 - [ 1046]
how much of a clue does CCP need i wonder...its probably the only thread in existence where EVERY ALLIANCE is saying the same thing despite hating each others guts...TAKE A HINT CCP |
Silver Wizard |
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:38:00 - [ 1047]
It takes TWO WEEKS to fly a battleship. Someone who puts in MONTHS and MONTHS of training should be able to kill one quickly.
There is no way you can just negate all the time capital pilots have invested and make carriers no more than a "T3 Battleship" |
Tidas Andrommeda
We The People
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:39:00 - [ 1048]
OMG THIS WILL KILL EVE! Just like the NOS nerf... and the EANM nerf... and the dual AB/MWD nerf... and the nano nerf... and the passive tanking nerf... CCCP...Take a hint from your past mistakes... YOURE ONLY LOSING YOUR CUSTOMERS  Btw anyone who thinks im serious here is a complete **** |
Max Torps
Nomadic Conglomerate |
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:40:00 - [ 1049]
Edited by: Max Torps on 21/10/2007 22:40:51 Originally by: Cadela Fria
Edited by: Cadela Fria on 21/10/2007 22:20:56
You had me stopped and going "WHAT???" at this sentence alone Palli, and R1pp3r's post didn't help.
So tell, on the matter of lag, which is better:
1. 2 battleships, open cyno, add 3 carriers..or 1 mothership
or!
2. 50 battleships
Please do reason your way out of that one.
Also, I'm tired of the the whole argument about carriers and motherships having to be more support ships.
Look for christ sake it was CCP who, a year ago, maybe less, said "We want carriers and motherships to step up to the frontlines and fight!" and thus introduced the <no pos hugging and delegating fighters!> dealie.
Great, awesome..Now you want them back at POS'es basically. I'm sorry but this occurs to me as "1 step forward, 2 steps back".
Secondly, what in the WORLD is up with all this balancing crap in the first place? Haven't we had enough of that already? Look at what it did Amarr reconships, or look what balancing did to other games, like Planetside..or SWG, or ULTIMA ONLINE! The first love of my life in MMORPG'ing, RUINED, because some goobers decided it was a good idea to give everyone a fair, even playing ground.
IT'S FLAVOR YOU'RE KILLING FOR GODS SAKE! (sorry about the caps, but I can't say this enough).
Things are not supposed to be in perfect balance and be equal, and fair, or soft and mushy on the whole world. It's supposed to be exciting, challenging - Make you take a risk for once in your otherwise reptitive EVE Life!
You don't always need a comfy world where everything isn't a big thing that can't be dealt with without too much effort.
I personally NEED the feeling of "z0mG *flailing arms* it's a mothership! Run! *trips cause pants drop* ARGH! *crawls away in panic*" with the end result of me magically surviving the incident, or going down burning.
It gives the game FLAVOR! Gives it life and charm. Whether or not ya'll think I'm right or I'm just spewing crap out of my mouth, I firmly believe that an unbalanced world where some things are powerful beyond reason above other gives you a horizon to try and beat it by unimaginable odds, think creatively and forge friendship/alliances to bring whatever it is, down.
What will you strive for with things such as this in place? Certainly not capital ships.
"Argh a mothership!"
Response: So what? Can't do anything
"But..the name..it's size..the amount of fighters it has!..it's intimidating!"
Reponse: Uh..nope, not anymore. *yawn* someone get a dictor, we'll take it down in a sec.
"*completely disillusioned*...oh...but I thought...I..oh .."
Response: Yeah well you thought wrong, wouldn't be balanced if such an awesome ship could fend for itself now would it.
How much does a carrier cost to build? 650 mil? 700 mil?
How much does it cost to build a HAC? 30..40 mil? something like that?
Divide that up and you have 16 HACs vs 1 carrier - Who wins? Pure hypothetically it's 1 carrier vs 16 HACs, thats it. Who wins?
For the love of all that is left great about EVE, Don't even consider alternatives for this, just SCRAP IT, PLEASE.
Balanced - Is - BORING!! Period!
Flavour. Yep, I agree with this post. It's passionate about the game. Something we need to see. I agree changes need to be made though. Perhaps not the way we have seen described. |
Inturist
FSB-ALFA
RED.OverLord |
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:41:00 - [ 1050]
Originally by: Strategos
Originally by: Inturist
Originally by: Strategos
Originally by: Kagura Nikon
calling someone an idiot will hardly make your point more true, and only helps to make you look like a fool.
And again you are givign a counter exampel thaqt only matters if you are solo. CArriers are not supposed to be solo, you shoudl ahve someoen there to tackle for ya. So you made yourself look like an idiot.
Nerfing capitals is a great pass on correct direction to make game more FUN for MORE people.
Can't argue with these idiots, Kagura. They all want their carriers to solo pwn and believe they should be able to just cause they spent a billion isk and took time to train it. And you're right, by their logic your Nano Mach should be able to solo a carrier or even a dread.
I believe this change would be good. That's not saying carriers shouldn't get a supportive role buff, it's saying the change to dones/fighters would be good. I believe triage could use some love to make it more convenient to use to support a fleet during a fight.
I saw on the market for sale brains , go there , buy some , use it . Well , but might not help u , well , at least u can try
Carrier r not SOLOPWN Mobiles . If it's solo pwn mobile , how it when simple frigate with damneners, damped u ? U can't do a **** , well , strange , Carrier is solo pwn mobile ?eh ?
Where was the carriers support? Oh that's right, you had none, because you think carriers should be able to kill anything solo. Maybe if you had activated triage you'd have known you are now immune to EW and those simple frigates would have been dead, or you know, you could of had the support that is supposed to be with you do it, but alas, you don't think carriers should need support and it should be able to pwn solo.
HOld on !! ur words : They all want their carriers to solo pwn and believe they should be able to just cause they spent a billion isk and took time to train it. And now : here was the carriers support? Oh that's right, you had none, because you think carriers should be able to kill anything solo. Maybe if you had activated triage you'd have known you are now immune to EW and those simple frigates would have been dead, or you know, you could of had the support that is supposed to be with you do it, but alas, you don't think carriers should need support and it should be able to pwn solo So for **** sick , first u telling that now we r the solopwn mobiles , after u saying wtf where my support was cuz i can't do solo atm , and triage mode , ROFL - buy a book CArrier - book for dummies - i can't move , can't deploy the fighters, so u don't know how the carrier works , so stfu pliz. U just ****ed up urself dude  |
All Channels
EVE Information Portal
