open All Channels
seplocked Test Server Feedback
blankseplocked Massive Supercarrier nerf intentional?
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 44 45 46 47 [48] 49 50 51 52 : last (52)

Author Topic

Luka Cino
Caldari
State War Academy
Posted - 2009.11.16 23:01:00 - [1411]
 

The QEN3-number is bullocks.

I know firsthand because my corp went from 0 to 4 the minute the initial devblog by Abathur got released.

So I guess that we have reached at least a 4-digitnumber by now.

Maybe that is one aspect that caused CCP to panic. But I want to add, that we did it in such a rushed manner only due to the fact, that we wanted to do it, while there was still Sov 4 around. No more Supercaps in the near future (maybe a titan or two). Our haulers would probably strike, because they had to neglect their families to get the job done. Razz

Vire Amarr
Amarr
Kernel of War
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.11.16 23:02:00 - [1412]
 

Edited by: Vire Amarr on 16/11/2009 23:14:48
Edited by: Vire Amarr on 16/11/2009 23:09:41
Originally by: Cain m
Actually it's Crowd Control Productions aka ****s Counting Profits


Well my bad ^^ but the meaning is close :)



The CCP Methode >>Linkage

Step 1: Gage the importance of the decision.
Step 2: Sympathize with the person. (not needed if you have the authority)
Step 3: Tell the person a convincing lie.
Step 4: Break the person's will.
Step 5: Replace the old opinion with one of your choosing. (works with a community)

Enjoy

Jenessa
Sacred Templars
RED.OverLord
Posted - 2009.11.16 23:13:00 - [1413]
 

Edited by: Jenessa on 16/11/2009 23:13:46
People keep talking about a proliferation of SC's if these changes go through.

Where have CCP said that SC's will be buildable in stations?? Did I miss it?

When you factor into it the 23 day build time, the fact a capital ship assembly array is needed to build each and every one I really doubt SC's would be anything like a common sight.

And this rubbish about docking games, you mean like carriers do now? I mean whats the difference between the two when it comes to that kinda stuff? Or are people just moaning about how frustrating they might feel to fire on a SC on a station and then see it dock like dreads/carriers do now. Oh no how awful!! Rolling Eyes

Fogy
Body Count Inc.
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2009.11.16 23:13:00 - [1414]
 

Originally by: Karlemgne
Edited by: Karlemgne on 16/11/2009 22:44:24
Edited by: Karlemgne on 16/11/2009 22:43:40
Edited by: Karlemgne on 16/11/2009 22:39:19
Originally by: Fogy
Edited by: Fogy on 16/11/2009 22:32:13
Originally by: Karlemgne

Yes, you are so right. Changing a ship that exactly 426 people out of 200,000 fly is exactly analogous to the NGE in SWG. Rolling Eyes


Do you realy fail to see that the low number of this shiptype was due to it's incredibly nerfed status?

Do thous numbers include ships built since the initial patchblog and changes were put in place by CCP Abathur?

With your logic, CCP should dropp the cost of titans aswell.. What a grate game we would end up with.. Rolling Eyes


Sure, okay, fine. Explain to me exactly then, if 426 people fly them now, and more will fly them after the patch, how is this change ANYTHING like the NGE in SWG?

You know what the NGE is right? Where SOE completely changed how the entire combat system in SWG worked?

Just lay off the comparisons to the NGE. They just make you look dumb.

*edit

I don't even think Titans should be in game, tbh. They were broken then, they're broken now, and their proliferation is one of the worst things that ever happened to this game.

Suffice it to say, in this circumstance, however, I think they're different animals. Titan's still operate as the jump bridging super-ship of alliances. I'm fine if they remain in the hands of alliances only.

However, they want to transform supercarriers into anti-capital ship platforms. In that case, since this has become capital ship online, and those of us NOT in mega-alliances need to combat hotdrops on cruiser fights, then I think the changes to mothers is justified.

That's my opinion. Nothing more, nothing less. What I am not doing is threatening to close my accounts, declaring that the game is dead, or telling other people they don't the right to their opinions because they're not "end gamers."


Allright, from what i understand.. NGE was some patch, expansion or whatnot, that ruined SWG. or something.

The comparison people are pulling from this is how the mom change (reduced cost, increased EHP and docking ability) with the Dominion sov combat change; having to reinforce outposts/conquerable stations.. Twice mind you. will be the game breaker.
buttloads of easily aquirable motherships camping their stations while the invaders are trying to take over their system.

Dominion comes with more then the mom changes remember? ;)


Titans, yes they are ment to be tools of war for 0.0 alliances. In my opinion so are motherships ment to be, that they are some times used othervice is a diferent storry. Personaly I'd be happy if fighterbombers got the same treatment as doomsdays, bombs, and dictor/hictor boubbles for lowsec.

Most of the players i know that own motherships has taken the time and put in the effort to grind up the isk or minnerals for them by them self (me included) I can think of 3 that are owned by the corporation the pilotes are in. but even thous ships has been financed through mining, production/sale. EVE is a M-Multiplayer-ORPG afterall.

I wouldnt give a ****t if fighterbombers go the same treatment as bombs, dictor/hictor boubbles, etc for lowsec.

As for what End Game is in EVE, IMO 0.0 is. Thats where the REAL sandbox of this game is.

Dont think i'w threatned with closing my accounts over this eighter, but I'w never felt treated this bad as a customer ever befor. I'm not declaring the game dead eighter, but i honestly fear for it.
This is one of the issues with the price reduction / docking rights changes, as they cant rightfully undothem without causing even more drama, so what will they be left with? Nerfing the supercarriers back to where they are right now on sisi.. useless bricks of e-peen.

Drachenlord
Amarr
Viziam
Posted - 2009.11.16 23:27:00 - [1415]
 

There's a Lot of QQing and *****ing and whinging in this thread... Mostly from people who bought Motherships after the initial devblog went out.

Now, the thing is, As Angelus said... there was warning that a cost reduction was going to be coming around for these things, and those that recently bought These ships are the ones that are screaming the loudest against the cost reduction. Even if CCP says now that they plan to reimburse you in some way...

Which, is an interesting precedent is it not? where else in the world is your money returned if you lose your ass on a bad high risk investment?

Face Facts... 600 (or even 1500 to be generous) or so of the 300k subscribers in this game have a supercarrier... that's a drop in the bucket... CCP will do whats best for the game as a whole and not for the Vocal 1% (less in this case)

HOWEVER... there is one HUGE problem.. Don't let these things dock... in ANY station EVER... Docking games with normal carriers is bad enough...

So... My Opinion on how Supercarriers should be changed (its a compromise!)

1 - NO Docking - Allow us to Password Lock Hangar Arrays so nobody can get at the ships while stored, but the pilots.
2 - Keep the Build Cost Reduction As planned - I leave it to CCP to decide whether or not a reimbursement is really a good idea to appease .5% of the subscriber base. (flame away, I don't care)
3 - 2 Fighters/Fighter Bombers per level, You wanted 1, we Want 3... so its a fair compromise... oh, Stop Balancing around DCUs as well.. please
4 - Revert the Explosion Radius of the Compact Torps back to the initial stats, and give the Bombers a little more HP.
5 - Keep the Current plan to increase Jump Range to Dreadnought Level..

I think with this solution, people would be able to live with the Supercarrier class.

Also... side note for Titans... revert the Capital Weapon bonuses back to 200% vs 100% Ninja nerfing that was pretty bad... Titans need to be able to project some decent damage more than once every 5 damn minutes.

xplosiv
Posted - 2009.11.16 23:29:00 - [1416]
 

Originally by: Drachenlord
There's a Lot of QQing and *****ing and whinging in this thread... Mostly from people who bought Motherships after the initial devblog went out.

Now, the thing is, As Angelus said... there was warning that a cost reduction was going to be coming around for these things, and those that recently bought These ships are the ones that are screaming the loudest against the cost reduction. Even if CCP says now that they plan to reimburse you in some way...

Which, is an interesting precedent is it not? where else in the world is your money returned if you lose your ass on a bad high risk investment?

Face Facts... 600 (or even 1500 to be generous) or so of the 300k subscribers in this game have a supercarrier... that's a drop in the bucket... CCP will do whats best for the game as a whole and not for the Vocal 1% (less in this case)

HOWEVER... there is one HUGE problem.. Don't let these things dock... in ANY station EVER... Docking games with normal carriers is bad enough...

So... My Opinion on how Supercarriers should be changed (its a compromise!)

1 - NO Docking - Allow us to Password Lock Hangar Arrays so nobody can get at the ships while stored, but the pilots.
2 - Keep the Build Cost Reduction As planned - I leave it to CCP to decide whether or not a reimbursement is really a good idea to appease .5% of the subscriber base. (flame away, I don't care)
3 - 2 Fighters/Fighter Bombers per level, You wanted 1, we Want 3... so its a fair compromise... oh, Stop Balancing around DCUs as well.. please
4 - Revert the Explosion Radius of the Compact Torps back to the initial stats, and give the Bombers a little more HP.
5 - Keep the Current plan to increase Jump Range to Dreadnought Level..

I think with this solution, people would be able to live with the Supercarrier class.

Also... side note for Titans... revert the Capital Weapon bonuses back to 200% vs 100% Ninja nerfing that was pretty bad... Titans need to be able to project some decent damage more than once every 5 damn minutes.


CCP have gone to far.
This far NO Further.
Build cost stays the same aswell.

Greg DaimYo
Caldari
Biotronics Inc.
Posted - 2009.11.16 23:38:00 - [1417]
 

Originally by: Drachenlord
There's a Lot of QQing and *****ing and whinging in this thread... Mostly from people who bought Motherships after the initial devblog went out.

Now, the thing is, As Angelus said... there was warning that a cost reduction was going to be coming around for these things, and those that recently bought These ships are the ones that are screaming the loudest against the cost reduction. Even if CCP says now that they plan to reimburse you in some way...

Which, is an interesting precedent is it not? where else in the world is your money returned if you lose your ass on a bad high risk investment?

Face Facts... 600 (or even 1500 to be generous) or so of the 300k subscribers in this game have a supercarrier... that's a drop in the bucket... CCP will do whats best for the game as a whole and not for the Vocal 1% (less in this case)

HOWEVER... there is one HUGE problem.. Don't let these things dock... in ANY station EVER... Docking games with normal carriers is bad enough...

So... My Opinion on how Supercarriers should be changed (its a compromise!)

1 - NO Docking - Allow us to Password Lock Hangar Arrays so nobody can get at the ships while stored, but the pilots.
2 - Keep the Build Cost Reduction As planned - I leave it to CCP to decide whether or not a reimbursement is really a good idea to appease .5% of the subscriber base. (flame away, I don't care)
3 - 2 Fighters/Fighter Bombers per level, You wanted 1, we Want 3... so its a fair compromise... oh, Stop Balancing around DCUs as well.. please
4 - Revert the Explosion Radius of the Compact Torps back to the initial stats, and give the Bombers a little more HP.
5 - Keep the Current plan to increase Jump Range to Dreadnought Level..

I think with this solution, people would be able to live with the Supercarrier class.

Also... side note for Titans... revert the Capital Weapon bonuses back to 200% vs 100% Ninja nerfing that was pretty bad... Titans need to be able to project some decent damage more than once every 5 damn minutes.


I could basically live with this. Jumprange needs to be kept at 5 ly imo though.

And I wouldn't mind a reimbursement, i could do some evil things with the ISK. YARRRR!!

Titans are awfully bad in their current incarnation.

And please fix the performanceissues I (and others) are having on Sisi lately. The planets show properly since the latest patch but 5 fps isn't funny when you were able to run a dual-client without any problems prior to the patch.

Drachenlord
Amarr
Viziam
Posted - 2009.11.16 23:39:00 - [1418]
 

Seriously... the Cost Reduction is fine...

It ONLY effects the people who have bought them recently... or just want to hop on that bandwagon to get some money back...

In the real world, as I said, you don't get your money back if an investment fails.. simple... Giving them their money back, fine I can deal with that...

But anyone that claims that this hurts the people who produce these ships for sale is trying to obfuscate the fact that demand will very likely increase and potentially netting them more profit.

Hopefully CCP will remember to reduce the build time to compensate.

Karlemgne
Tides Of War
Posted - 2009.11.16 23:48:00 - [1419]
 

Edited by: Karlemgne on 16/11/2009 23:51:13
Originally by: Fogy

Allright, from what i understand.. NGE was some patch, expansion or whatnot, that ruined SWG. or something.


The "NGE," so called, was more than some patch. Lucas Arts mandated fundamental changes to SWG if SOE wanted to hang onto the Star Wars license (not sure why SOE always carries the sole blame for this). These changes were supposed line up with the release of Episode 3 on DVD (I think it was Episode 3).

What the NGE changed was the entire game from crafting to combat. Lets just put it like this, before the NGE SWG was a normalish MMO with an expansive crafting system. After the NGE the crafting system was gutted and combat had gone from normal MMO combat to a twitched based system.

They completely changed the entire game for EVERYONE who played it.

Quote:
The comparison people are pulling from this is how the mom change (reduced cost, increased EHP and docking ability) with the Dominion sov combat change; having to reinforce outposts/conquerable stations.. Twice mind you. will be the game breaker.


People would have a better argument if that were the one they were making. Mostly its just that supercarrier changes are going to ruin the game--they don't discuss sov at all.

However, even in this case I completely disagree with the analogy to the NGE. Truth be told changes to 0.0, and Sov specifically, affect a relatively small portion of eve's player base. Those of us who pirate in low-sec, or live in empire, will not be affected really at all. And there are a LOT more of us than there are 0.0 dwellers.

Quote:
buttloads of easily aquirable motherships camping their stations while the invaders are trying to take over their system.


Number one, you are going to see them spam anyway amongst 0.0 alliances. The changes, in my mind, at least allow those not in mega-alliances to realistically work for these even then though there is still the production bottleneck (has to be done at a POS in a system with Sov, build time, etc). This should keep the spam in check--a little.

The WORST thing that happens is Chribba is out of a job when these can be bought and sold in stations. :P

Quote:
Titans, yes they are ment to be tools of war for 0.0 alliances. In my opinion so are motherships ment to be


Right, but CCP is saying they want to redefine their role as an anti-cap ship platform. Forgive me if I say as someone not in an 0.0 alliances, we need anti-cap ship platforms in low-sec too.

Quote:
Most of the players i know that own motherships has taken the time and put in the effort to grind up the isk or minnerals for them by them self (me included) I can think of 3 that are owned by the corporation the pilotes are in. but even thous ships has been financed through mining, production/sale. EVE is a M-Multiplayer-ORPG afterall.


No argument. I'll just say that the projected price tag of 9 to 10 billion (about the cost of 40 million sp character) is going to still price a lot of "individuals" out. This will still be a multiplayer project to acquire for most people--at least in my mind.

Quote:
As for what End Game is in EVE, IMO 0.0 is. Thats where the REAL sandbox of this game is.


I agree and disagree. 0.0 is part of the sandbox. Its not the "real" sandbox though. And plenty of people, myself included, don't like it. We'd rather stick in small gangs and pirate low-sec. Some people even want to build high-sec empires, and ninja-salvage collectives. Who are we to tell them that their sandbox isn't the real one, or that their idea of endgame is lame?

Oh, and by the way, THANK YOU for the rational non-flaming post. I appreciate it.

Quesa
D00M.
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2009.11.16 23:53:00 - [1420]
 

Edited by: Quesa on 16/11/2009 23:55:26
Edited by: Quesa on 16/11/2009 23:54:12
Originally by: Jenessa
Edited by: Jenessa on 16/11/2009 23:13:46
People keep talking about a proliferation of SC's if these changes go through.

Where have CCP said that SC's will be buildable in stations?? Did I miss it?

When you factor into it the 23 day build time, the fact a capital ship assembly array is needed to build each and every one I really doubt SC's would be anything like a common sight.

You mean like how Titans didn't proliferate? Sure, maybe not at the rate that JF's or carriers did but they still will. Just because it's a 3 week building time and being required to build in a POS doesn't mean they won't proliferate. Don't be so narrow minded about this.

    CCP thought for sure there would only be 3-4 Titans in the game when they introduced them. They never thought a single Alliance would own over 10.


Just the decrease in build cost will increase the number of them out there but I suggest that the only REAL factor keeping people out of Moms was the requirement to either stay in it 24/7 or train up a holding alt (which is utter rubbish on CCP's part). The mere fact that you will be able to dock them will be the largest factor on the increase of these hulls, factor that in with dropping the build cost to 5bil, you'll see these things all over in a years time.

Originally by: Jenessa
And this rubbish about docking games, you mean like carriers do now? I mean whats the difference between the two when it comes to that kinda stuff? Or are people just moaning about how frustrating they might feel to fire on a SC on a station and then see it dock like dreads/carriers do now. Oh no how awful!! Rolling Eyes

Except you could hotdrop a carrier with 10-15 dreads and kill it, never happen with an SC.

Draconus Lofwyr
Gallente
CryoTech Engineering
Omega Vector
Posted - 2009.11.17 00:04:00 - [1421]
 

Originally by: Drachenlord

3 - 2 Fighters/Fighter Bombers per level, You wanted 1, we Want 3... so its a fair compromise... oh, Stop Balancing around DCUs as well.. please



If they insist on Balancing around DCU's, make them viable, Make them so you only need to fit one, and instead of the skill allowing additional fittings per lvl, allow one additional fighter per lvl so at lvl 5 you only need one module to get 5 fighters, with the drawback of an increase of some fitting requirement per lvl. I have yet to see a carrier fit that used DCU's that were not pos sitting. This could be a SC only module instead of the fitting increase.


DL

R0ze
GK inc.
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2009.11.17 00:04:00 - [1422]
 

Originally by: Drachenlord
Seriously... the Cost Reduction is fine...

What is so good about cost reduction?
Why should the ship be available for everyone?

Bassicaly a lot of the unneeded changes and nerfs and rebalances have happened just because the ship has become available to every hisec mission grinder with little effort..

The whole point is that this ship class should be cost-uneffective twice/tripple the price it is now so when you loose one you feel the pain rather than undock the next spare.. but it still should makes sense to use one in combat which was nicely done/possible with the innitial changes by Abathur.

Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
Posted - 2009.11.17 00:05:00 - [1423]
 

About docking games:

They're a problem when it comes to anything, particularly when RR is involved (a timer increase for capitals and supercapitals specifically + RR giving real aggro would easily solve that anyway - which should have been done long ago really).




Lilith Velkor
Minmatar
Heretic Army
B A N E
Posted - 2009.11.17 00:10:00 - [1424]
 

Originally by: Jenessa

And this rubbish about docking games, you mean like carriers do now? I mean whats the difference between the two when it comes to that kinda stuff? Or are people just moaning about how frustrating they might feel to fire on a SC on a station and then see it dock like dreads/carriers do now. Oh no how awful!! Rolling Eyes


The difference should not be that hard to figure out if you look at the HP values.

While ganking a regular carrier / dread is not an easy task by any means, there are quite a few entities that can rally the needed 15 dreads to ensure a kill before they can deagress. Nothing every 100-member corp in the game can pull off easily, but quite a few can.

15 players plus cyno bait to handle a single player, not exactly well-scaled but whatever, its still in the realm of the regular blobbing.


Now being able to rally 100+ dreads to ensure the kill on a supercarrier, that is completely out of the question for medium-sized entities that dont own isk-printing moons.

100 players plus cyno bait to handle a single player, roughly 250bill in assets on the line, given the actual damage you can inflict that is completely and utterly out of whack.

Jenessa
Sacred Templars
RED.OverLord
Posted - 2009.11.17 00:36:00 - [1425]
 

Originally by: Lilith Velkor
Originally by: Jenessa

And this rubbish about docking games, you mean like carriers do now? I mean whats the difference between the two when it comes to that kinda stuff? Or are people just moaning about how frustrating they might feel to fire on a SC on a station and then see it dock like dreads/carriers do now. Oh no how awful!! Rolling Eyes


The difference should not be that hard to figure out if you look at the HP values.

While ganking a regular carrier / dread is not an easy task by any means, there are quite a few entities that can rally the needed 15 dreads to ensure a kill before they can deagress. Nothing every 100-member corp in the game can pull off easily, but quite a few can.

15 players plus cyno bait to handle a single player, not exactly well-scaled but whatever, its still in the realm of the regular blobbing.


Now being able to rally 100+ dreads to ensure the kill on a supercarrier, that is completely out of the question for medium-sized entities that dont own isk-printing moons.

100 players plus cyno bait to handle a single player, roughly 250bill in assets on the line, given the actual damage you can inflict that is completely and utterly out of whack.


But common sense would dictate to people surely that going for a SC on a station is a waste of time and not to bother. You're not gonna kill it on a station, end of story so don't even try.

Lilith Velkor
Minmatar
Heretic Army
B A N E
Posted - 2009.11.17 00:39:00 - [1426]
 

Originally by: Jenessa

But common sense would dictate to people surely that going for a SC on a station is a waste of time and not to bother. You're not gonna kill it on a station, end of story so don't even try.


Exactly, thats the issue there. Makes sense to go try to gank a carrier that way and many can do it, but not a SC, even if you are part of the very few that could.

Jenessa
Sacred Templars
RED.OverLord
Posted - 2009.11.17 02:01:00 - [1427]
 

Originally by: Lilith Velkor
Originally by: Jenessa

But common sense would dictate to people surely that going for a SC on a station is a waste of time and not to bother. You're not gonna kill it on a station, end of story so don't even try.


Exactly, thats the issue there. Makes sense to go try to gank a carrier that way and many can do it, but not a SC, even if you are part of the very few that could.


I still don't think the arguement that the only reason to prevent docking of SC's in future is that fact that they'd be very difficult to kill on a station makes any sense at all.

Infact letting SC's dock makes some scenario's more likely to happen that WOULD result in the death of the ships, for example only tonight we killed a carrier that tried to dock at a station but got pulled out short due to a bubble being placed away from the station.

Lilith Velkor
Minmatar
Heretic Army
B A N E
Posted - 2009.11.17 02:28:00 - [1428]
 

Originally by: Jenessa

Infact letting SC's dock makes some scenario's more likely to happen that WOULD result in the death of the ships, for example only tonight we killed a carrier that tried to dock at a station but got pulled out short due to a bubble being placed away from the station.


Well, the thing is in lowsec you cant have bubbles, there is no way to prevent them from reaching the docking point.

Having stations as a new point-of-interest for motherships might work in 0.0, but in lowsec it wont, and lowsec is where I see the issue becoming most problematic.

Apart from the changes in sov mechanics (you have to attack stations to grab sov now?), but I havent really looked into those as they do not concern me.

Ai Mei
Starfish Operating Syndicate
Posted - 2009.11.17 03:52:00 - [1429]
 

Im guessing cpp is doing this nerf more to make money, you heard me make money! From a business standpoint they make more money off new subscriptions than veteran players, if you can advertise that all these nerfs are to make sure new players can get into big bad cool ships fast, then they can keep their new player base more and attract more customers saying, look at the cool stuff you can get in 6 months rather than their veteran player base.

Veterans make EvE ccp not the noobs. Vets, run the alliances, vets run 0.0

The noobs are meat shields.

The Internets
Posted - 2009.11.17 04:42:00 - [1430]
 

Originally by: Ai Mei
nerf


Motherships/Supercarriers are getting massive buffs compared to what's live at the moment. Please explain how gaining ~4-5x more EHP, 2-3x more DPS against capitals, and easier access for the cost of 5 drones (for a role the ship wasn't intended, swatting small ships unsupported) is a nerf.

And being able to dock would no longer require garage alts, which is a beyond massive change in favor of the player. Perhaps not for the game, but definitely a buff.

Guess what, the TEST version that was on the TEST server was changed. Instead of a ridiculously massively huge buff, you're just getting a ridiculously massive buff.

There have been NO NERFS AT ALL. ALL BUFFS.

Ai Mei
Starfish Operating Syndicate
Posted - 2009.11.17 05:16:00 - [1431]
 

Originally by: The Internets


Motherships/Supercarriers are getting massive buffs compared to what's live at the moment. Please explain how gaining ~4-5x more EHP, 2-3x more DPS against capitals, and easier access for the cost of 5 drones (for a role the ship wasn't intended, swatting small ships unsupported) is a nerf.


Dreads are going to be the new flavor of eve, no one will waste the time or isk to build titans or motherships.

Quote:


And being able to dock would no longer require garage alts, which is a beyond massive change in favor of the player. Perhaps not for the game, but definitely a buff.



Asumming that caod is right and there is ~255 titans in game with about 500 mother ships, this would be around 755 people that could have garage alts. so 750 times 15.00 about 11325 dollars per month in lost accts for not needign a garage alt. i would guess more of about 22,000 if you include cyno alt accts.

Quote:

Guess what, the TEST version that was on the TEST server was changed. Instead of a ridiculously massively huge buff, you're just getting a ridiculously massive buff.

There have been NO NERFS AT ALL. ALL BUFFS.


2 drones per level and bombers that do crap for damage. yeah really buff there. Obviously you dont fly a capital.

Soleil Fournier
StarFleet Enterprises
Systematic-Chaos
Posted - 2009.11.17 05:25:00 - [1432]
 

Originally by: The Internets


Motherships/Supercarriers are getting massive buffs compared to what's live at the moment. Please explain how gaining ~4-5x more EHP, 2-3x more DPS against capitals, and easier access for the cost of 5 drones (for a role the ship wasn't intended, swatting small ships unsupported) is a nerf.

And being able to dock would no longer require garage alts, which is a beyond massive change in favor of the player. Perhaps not for the game, but definitely a buff.

Guess what, the TEST version that was on the TEST server was changed. Instead of a ridiculously massively huge buff, you're just getting a ridiculously massive buff.

There have been NO NERFS AT ALL. ALL BUFFS.


Is what you say correct? Yes, the stats of the ship are improved. That does not mean that they designed the changes well or fixed the ship class. These ships are billed as supercapitals and we were promised they'd be fixed. Instead the ships in their original state have been gutted and replaced by a carrier with 15 million ehp and the damage of a dread (thanks to the explosion radius on the compact citadels).

I view that as a nerf, it's not the supercapital class that we mom pilots have come to love and hoped to fly on the battlefield.

I don't understand these changes, and don't agree with them. If the DPS was too much, they should have just lowered the damage on the fighter bombers instead of going to all this other trouble and throwing everyone up in arms over everything else. Forget docking and halving their build cost and nerfing the number of fighters. Just revert the changes and keep the bomber damage as what they are now.



Karlemgne
Tides Of War
Posted - 2009.11.17 05:28:00 - [1433]
 

Originally by: R0ze
Originally by: Drachenlord
Seriously... the Cost Reduction is fine...

What is so good about cost reduction?
Why should the ship be available for everyone?


And why should they only be available to some small portion of the eve player base? Why should it be the case that I'll now have to worry about big 0.0 alliances hot dropping these on low-sec combats?

Quote:
Bassicaly a lot of the unneeded changes and nerfs and rebalances have happened just because the ship has become available to every hisec mission grinder with little effort..


No, your right. Instead they should just be available to alliances that can AFK isk on moons. Because afking isk from a few moons is SOOO much more like working for one than "high-sec mission grinders."

Quote:
The whole point is that this ship class should be cost-uneffective twice/tripple the price it is now so when you loose one you feel the pain rather than undock the next spare.. but it still should makes sense to use one in combat which was nicely done/possible with the innitial changes by Abathur.


Wait, triple the cost? Wouldn't that put them in Titan range? LaughingLaughing


Karlemgne
Tides Of War
Posted - 2009.11.17 05:35:00 - [1434]
 

Originally by: Lilith Velkor
Originally by: Jenessa

Well, the thing is in lowsec you cant have bubbles, there is no way to prevent them from reaching the docking point.


So instead of making them dockable and affordable, now I'll have to worry about entities like Invicta (you know I love you guys) hot dropping 10 of these on us anyway.

And its not like there are other ships that are already difficult to kill on stations in low-sec? Forget carriers, ****, its hard to kill BATTLESHIPS in properly fit RR gangs.

Quote:
Having stations as a new point-of-interest for motherships might work in 0.0, but in lowsec it wont, and lowsec is where I see the issue becoming most problematic.


Its going to be problematic whichever way you slice it. Making it more affordable allows smaller corps and alliances that live in low-sec to at least be able to field some of these themselves.

Tarron Sarek
Gallente
Biotronics Inc.
Initiative Mercenaries
Posted - 2009.11.17 05:49:00 - [1435]
 

There are so many greedy little selfish players posting in this thread, it really turns my stomach.
And I start to fear that the devs will listen to them, although they clearly haven't got balance in mind. They just want their own cheap EW immune station hugging 'supercapital' to play with.

It's exactly what all the rich but risk-averse players out there want. Or am I wrong?
Affordable, almost unkillable without major effort, and not even a certain level of commitment required anymore. No real consequences either.
It will be the ultimate 0.0 and lowsec carebear-mobile.

No, I don't have a mothership/supercarrier. Yes I could afford one. No, I still think it's badly thought-out change, which is about as far-sighted as the initial titan concept.

zixori
Posted - 2009.11.17 05:56:00 - [1436]
 

something else needs to be added w/ this.

rorquals need to be able to use tractor beams on ships. like in the movie mortal combat when scorpion throws that dagger rope thing and goes GET OVER HERE! that type of deal.

battle rorquals pulling people around the battlefield would balance all of this. please implement it.

Drachenlord
Amarr
Viziam
Posted - 2009.11.17 07:31:00 - [1437]
 

Originally by: Tarron Sarek
There are so many greedy little selfish players posting in this thread, it really turns my stomach.
And I start to fear that the devs will listen to them, although they clearly haven't got balance in mind. They just want their own cheap EW immune station hugging 'supercapital' to play with.

It's exactly what all the rich but risk-averse players out there want. Or am I wrong?
Affordable, almost unkillable without major effort, and not even a certain level of commitment required anymore. No real consequences either.
It will be the ultimate 0.0 and lowsec carebear-mobile.

No, I don't have a mothership/supercarrier. Yes I could afford one. No, I still think it's badly thought-out change, which is about as far-sighted as the initial titan concept.


Actually, the greedy little selfish players comment could be directed at the "bitter vets" that own the bloody things and don't want anything to change about them...

However, I for one hope to god CCP does NOT allow these things to dock, EVER... A Supercapital is an investment, and a risky one... being able to hide it in a station and play docking games does not entail that risk.

As for them being reserved only for the wealthy or whatever you want to call it... Come on... 99% of the people saying they need to stay at their current price obviously have one and are up in arms over simple and selfish reasons...

Things change, suck it up and deal with it... you made an investment with that Mothership... (especially if you bought one just recently) and the investment is turning sour.... However this time, CCP is offering you some sort of recompense... Constructive posting will get more done than flaming, screaming, kicking and holding your breath like a 5 year old.

The Average Age of Eve players is rather high for you all to be acting like a bunch of goddamn grade school dropouts.

Karlemgne
Tides Of War
Posted - 2009.11.17 08:25:00 - [1438]
 

Originally by: Tarron Sarek
There are so many greedy little selfish players posting in this thread, it really turns my stomach.
And I start to fear that the devs will listen to them, although they clearly haven't got balance in mind. They just want their own cheap EW immune station hugging 'supercapital' to play with.

It's exactly what all the rich but risk-averse players out there want. Or am I wrong?
Affordable, almost unkillable without major effort, and not even a certain level of commitment required anymore. No real consequences either.
It will be the ultimate 0.0 and lowsec carebear-mobile.

No, I don't have a mothership/supercarrier. Yes I could afford one. No, I still think it's badly thought-out change, which is about as far-sighted as the initial titan concept.


I actually agree with you somewhat. They are almost unkillable and to some extent game breaking. THEY SHOULDN'T BE IN THE GAME PERIOD.

But since they are in the game, and they're being turned into an anti-capital platform that IS going to get used in low-sec as well as 0.0, we might as well lower the barrier to entry so its not just the SUPER rich and/or their alliance overlords that can afford them.

But, lets not get confused here. I think for some of the people who can afford one of these (myself included at times), we lose sight of what a lot of isk is. A 10 billion isk price tag is a SERIOUS barrier to entry still. That's probably 15x the isk that your regular player has had in their wallet when it was at its fattest.

It seems that some people think that a 10 billion isk price tag is like giving away these ships for free.

Karlemgne
Tides Of War
Posted - 2009.11.17 08:33:00 - [1439]
 

Originally by: Drachenlord


Actually, the greedy little selfish players comment could be directed at the "bitter vets" that own the bloody things and don't want anything to change about them...

However, I for one hope to god CCP does NOT allow these things to dock, EVER... A Supercapital is an investment, and a risky one... being able to hide it in a station and play docking games does not entail that risk.

As for them being reserved only for the wealthy or whatever you want to call it... Come on... 99% of the people saying they need to stay at their current price obviously have one and are up in arms over simple and selfish reasons...

Things change, suck it up and deal with it... you made an investment with that Mothership... (especially if you bought one just recently) and the investment is turning sour.... However this time, CCP is offering you some sort of recompense... Constructive posting will get more done than flaming, screaming, kicking and holding your breath like a 5 year old.

The Average Age of Eve players is rather high for you all to be acting like a bunch of goddamn grade school dropouts.


I actually think you should let them dock, or offer players a more secure way to store them. Having to have a character who is always in a specific ship is stupid, and hurts the players.

But my real reason for quoting you here is to say, a-f**king-men.

Finally someone who gets it.

Master Arrow
Trinity Capital Endeavors Incorporated
Posted - 2009.11.17 08:50:00 - [1440]
 

Originally by: Karlemgne
Originally by: Tarron Sarek
There are so many greedy little selfish players posting in this thread, it really turns my stomach.
And I start to fear that the devs will listen to them, although they clearly haven't got balance in mind. They just want their own cheap EW immune station hugging 'supercapital' to play with.

It's exactly what all the rich but risk-averse players out there want. Or am I wrong?
Affordable, almost unkillable without major effort, and not even a certain level of commitment required anymore. No real consequences either.
It will be the ultimate 0.0 and lowsec carebear-mobile.

No, I don't have a mothership/supercarrier. Yes I could afford one. No, I still think it's badly thought-out change, which is about as far-sighted as the initial titan concept.


I actually agree with you somewhat. They are almost unkillable and to some extent game breaking. THEY SHOULDN'T BE IN THE GAME PERIOD.

But since they are in the game, and they're being turned into an anti-capital platform that IS going to get used in low-sec as well as 0.0, we might as well lower the barrier to entry so its not just the SUPER rich and/or their alliance overlords that can afford them.

But, lets not get confused here. I think for some of the people who can afford one of these (myself included at times), we lose sight of what a lot of isk is. A 10 billion isk price tag is a SERIOUS barrier to entry still. That's probably 15x the isk that your regular player has had in their wallet when it was at its fattest.

It seems that some people think that a 10 billion isk price tag is like giving away these ships for free.

Karlemgne, for someone crying about other people's complaining, you make our point that much more for us, if the cost drops to 5-6b you dont have to worry about people camping stations, they will just camp the low sec/empire entrance system gate with 10 of them remote repping each other....I think your whole problem is you are worried someone is gonna move into your little neck of the woods and steal your low sec pirating system with them. Dont be so emo about what other people feel is best for a ship they worked hard to get into. For your information it isnt the big time CEO's or corp owned ship you make it out to be. It's people who invest a lot of time and isk into getting them built for their own use on the battlefield, and to many of those pilots they have had them collecting dust because they were too easily killed and everyone saw them as big fat juicy targets to pad the killboards stats with. If you invested up to 20b isk like some people did and have a character you specialized specifically for this ship to only have it become "just another carrier with crappy fighterbombers" then you too would be complaining. I bet you were one of the people who whined like a little girl when they did the nano-nerf. Is that what your problem is? CCP took away your invincible nano ship and made you cry so you want to see every aspect of the game broken for others?


Pages: first : previous : ... 44 45 46 47 [48] 49 50 51 52 : last (52)

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


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only