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


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 23 ... : last (110)

Author Topic

Coolgamer
Destructive Influence
IT Alliance
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:18:00 - [541]
 

Edited by: Coolgamer on 21/10/2007 16:24:17
Hey if you want to work on some change for carriers user here are some very good ideas

i'll link them to you since seem most of them just go to oblivion, instead of those stupid "omg i got an idea i'll nerf the game and ruin your fun"

example 1 :
give ability to make shortcuts better :
shortcuts for drones
like using shortcuts for controlling DRONES, omg this is an idea interesting !

example 2 :
have some DECENT drone menu, and not the one in overview thta is damn laggy thanks to database when you carrer carries over 500 drones in multiple folders.

like :
i simply love the following one : http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=422990

one of my favorite oldest (the stacking thing) : http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=9431 yes 4 years we wait for a BETTER DRONE MANAGEMENT system

http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=440979
http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=279072
http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=497025


Some goods ideas from Aeon also : http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=494448

example 3 :
About bumping (yes bumping super cap and cap is silly and even though last patch, game mechanics dont reflect what would be reality) :
funny one : http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=490326
realistic one : http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=479182
(in a space opera when a small ship rush and crash on a large one, expect the small ship to die, the large one unharmed)
Basically a bumped ship should not be stopped if it's size larger than the ship bumping him

example 4 :
well your try now, use your brain, but NOT A DAMN NERF !!

you have many ideas there, all without any devs reply, take a coffee and read them instead thinking or nerfing the game that cost your brain nothing to do.

Armus Jenson
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:18:00 - [542]
 

Originally by: Tarron Sarek
To be honest, this idea sounds more like a crutch to me.

Wasn't it fully expected that people would for example use the Thanatos over a battleship anytime?
First you create two ship classes with immense firepower against pretty much every opponent, then you're surprised about people using those to gank.

How about making fighters really inefficient against frigates?
Why is a fighter tougher and more dangerous than a frigate?
Given the fact that a frigate is bigger and more sophisticated.
How about making fighters a lot cheaper and expendable, but also a lot cheaper. More like a swarm than single cruiser-battlecruiser like entities.

Don't get me wrong, I do think the limited control idea might help the current EVE gameplay, but it's a crutch, because the problem lies deep inside the design concept.



To be quite Honest, Fighters do cost 50x as much as your frigate. and their also protecting something that costs 1000 times more than your frigate.

Refer to my earlier post about not caring about noob whiners in their first t1 fitted bs getting blown up when they decide to Solo into 0.0 cause they think their ready.

Sprzedawczyk
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:18:00 - [543]
 

Snakebloke:
Your sig is full of awesome. Evemail me a link to it's full resolution version, I want to look at it for ages without end.

XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp
IT Alliance
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:18:00 - [544]
 

So you are nerfing capitals AGAIN making yet another useless heavy SP ship. Now carriers will sit right by pos shields and deploy the fighters again rather then being on the front line.

Great direction all right. The only direction I have seen out of CCP is to nerf every ship that takes a lot of training to get into.

It's all a total number of players you can cram into a node game anymore. POS warfare sucks, blob warfare sucks so quit encouraging it.

It's funny, people used to complain about DEVS playing the game, now I wonder if DEVS play this game at all.

Pallidum Treponema
Body Count Inc.
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:19:00 - [545]
 

Originally by: Vegeta

Insurance
Motherships are fine as they are. I may be slightly biased because I fly one, but the recent nerfs which hit titans the hardest were not easy on mom pilots either. Notice the recent trends in mothership deaths.

Your problem is not with the usability of the ships, but the lack of penalty when they die. Notice how motherships and titans have slowly been withdrawn from direct 0.0 conflicts after the bubble changes (took some people longer to figure out than others). This is because the penalty for losing one is high.

Remove insurance from ships that die in 0.0. Remove insurance from ships that die while criminally flagged. Make capital ship losses matter and people won't use them so carelessly. I doubt you realize on how many levels this is beneficial for the game.

Insurance is the number one reason for inflation and by far Eve's biggest ISK well. Capital ships are not the problem here, insurance is.



This is, in fact, a very good point. Removing insurance will make 0.0 warfare much more interesting. There will, of course, be very significant impacts on the economy in eve, which NEEDS to be analyzed first <-- VERY important!

gordon cain
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:20:00 - [546]
 

Why not just say that you cant make corp bellow 50members.

This nerf will render all small corps with cap abillities useless.

Im sick of hearing about nerfing this and adding that.

!!FIX THE THINGS THAT ARE BROKEN FIRST!!

Still we have problems with desync with moms and big gangs.

Gordon Cain

Cadela Fria
Amarr
x13
Raiden.
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:20:00 - [547]
 

Edited by: Cadela Fria on 21/10/2007 16:21:49
Originally by: Snakebloke
Originally by: Cadela Fria
Originally by: Snakebloke

Stuff



For the love of God fix your signature, it's too big ! Evil or Very Mad
-_-;;

Sorry just had to let that out.


lol ok sorry :)


Dude it's still too big, direct quote from the forum rules:

Originally by: Forum Rules

The size limits for signature graphics are as follows:
Maximum height: 120 pixels
Maximum width: 400 pixels
Maximum file size: 24,000 bytes (not kbytes)



I'm betting you that your signature exceeds 120 pixels in height

picchiatello
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:20:00 - [548]
 

limiting to only 5 drone yu can control isn't good...


Kalda Centauri
Gallente
Reckoning.
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:21:00 - [549]
 

Hey I lost my shuttle to a low sec gatecamp of BS's! That was sooo unfair11`111111!!!111 I demapnd you require BS's to have to use firgate buddies to target other ships so they can use more than one gun/drone on me! For fairness!!!\

What, it's the same thing as this proposed capital ship idea.

Yaay
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:21:00 - [550]
 

Edited by: Yaay on 21/10/2007 16:23:35
U know what my original vision of a carrier was, long before titans, long before jump bridges.

Carriers were well arm (ie, 10 fighter, not 20... also some sort of AA type gunnery) bases of operation in systems where there was nothing. Carriers could be docked in, like a station... if the carrier died, all ships/pilots were in pods in space. You could refit while docked, not outside. You could change ships while docked, not outside. You could be jumped while docked, not outside. Remote repping was non existent, because honestly, it wasn't needed, so why should it be allowed. The only way it could have worked would be to use resources while docked in a carrier which resulted in limited repairing for fleet ships... not capitals and beyond.

Carriers would have had basically a mothership like tank, and probably a mothership like cost... maybe more like 7 bil ish. Ship bays would determine how many people could dock. Say maybe 5 Mil ship bay space... this would be for docked people, back up ships, etc. The corp hanger would house ship gear for ships docked (not predominately excessive jump fuel like now).

People who were taking heavy damage in fights could dock at the carrier for some protection while trying to recoup... though this would have it's limitations... certainly not docking/undocking bull****. Carriers would be the means of jumping fleets across space... everyone dock up, carrier jumps... everyone undocks and works off the carriers from within enemy lines. Maybe carriers would have to anchor for docking/fighters.... 10 min anchoring/unanchoring sounds good... also prevents cloaking.

This was what i hoped.... The devs let me down from day one, it just became another drone boat.

Jakiri
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:22:00 - [551]
 

Originally by: CCP Abathur
Ladies and Gentlemen, please rest assured that the Dev team is paying attention to this thread. Don't take it all out on Zulu; he was just the messenger. As was stated in the original blog this is an idea and we thank you all for your constructive input. Please feel free to continue voicing what your concerns are and we will do our best to address them. Smile


Thank you for making this explicit.

Galactic reporter
Galactic reporter independant news corp
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:23:00 - [552]
 

wow THANK YOU CCP for nerfing more ships ingame. Soon there wont be any fun ships to fly

hattifnatt
North Eastern Swat
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:24:00 - [553]
 

crap idea tbh.

Shar'Tuk TheHated
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:24:00 - [554]
 

This is a HORRIBLE idea! I was planning on training into Capital ships but now that I see your thinking of doing this I wont WASTE all those skillpoints! I feel bad for all the guys that already trained into them. They are capital ships.. let them earn the name capital yeah? Wink

Anglo
Minmatar
Astral Mexicans
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:24:00 - [555]
 

Originally by: Blind Man
awesome changes guys, don't listen to the whiners here. everyone knows it needs to be done and anyone who says otherwise is just angry that their pwnmobiles got taken away



buhu where was you killed ?

wake up...

Tarron Sarek
Gallente
Biotronics Inc.
Initiative Mercenaries
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:25:00 - [556]
 

Originally by: Vaedian GER
Originally by: Windsoord Maelstrom
carrier 800m
fittings 100-200m
Fighters 9-20x15m
Skills 600m
Training Time 1 year

Firepower equal to a Dominix


Priceless

Now THIS is the problem Zulupark & others. Firepower is all that matters in most players' heads.
Way to go creating the Thanatos and Nyx with their unique (regarding carriers) damage bonus. Which ships do low sec gankers fly again?
If at all, each race's carrier could've received a 2-3% racial damage bonus, i.e. 2% per lvl thermal fighter dmg for gallente, 2% per lvl EM for Amarr, etc.
But then again, why give a support ship a gank bonus in the first place? Why not making drone control units seriously seriously gimp a carrier's tanking and/or retreat abilities? In addition to huge CPU and Powergrid needs a mass/agility penalty might increase balance.

rockerrikke
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:25:00 - [557]
 

Originally by: CCP Abathur
Ladies and Gentlemen, please rest assured that the Dev team is paying attention to this thread. Don't take it all out on Zulu; he was just the messenger. As was stated in the original blog this is an idea and we thank you all for your constructive input. Please feel free to continue voicing what your concerns are and we will do our best to address them. Smile

Most people should already have considered the possibility that this was the case - in many case in life, it often falls on a new/unpopular guy to do messy jobs - but he should still have had the balls to shrug off all the personal remarks and been on the professional about it.
About the worst you can do is trying to argue or fight back when you upset people like this. People have good reason to want to serial pod him for this outrage of an idea. He should have had the sense to ignore it and let them get it of their chest. As it is he is now branded as being to dangerous for any pilot to entrust him with influence on game mechanics.

The proposed idea is a huge nerf to the offensive capabilites of a carrier/ms. Why? Well to sum up on previous arguments, keeping the same level offensive capability hinges entirely on delegation, something which I am told already means less damage per fighter/drone.
And delegation is a logistical nightmare, compounded by the current latency issues in any sizeable engagement, controllers leaving or getting blow up, etc.

Additionally, the idea does not make carriers/ms better at support, which we can only hope is the real motive, it merely makes them much worse at reaching out and crushing.
There has already been several suggestions for improving the support role (remote repping), but these mainly hinge on 2 problems that do not appear to have solutions forthcoming.
Namely, lock time on friendlies and module activation latency in battles, both heavily contributing in making any repping come too late.
You also hear capacitor problems (sustainablity) mentioned.

- yes, forum alt, no, not a capship pilot -

Anglo
Minmatar
Astral Mexicans
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:26:00 - [558]
 

infact BEEF up the fighters a carier and mom can mannage.. make the fighters clusters of 5 but u can launch 50.... mmmmmmm tasty...

Raoul Endymion
Gallente
x13
IT Alliance
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:26:00 - [559]
 

this is one of the worst nerfs ever, and will have a profound effect on eve...to the worse in my opinion :/

Galactic reporter
Galactic reporter independant news corp
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:28:00 - [560]
 


General StarScream
Araton Aerospace Corporation
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:28:00 - [561]
 

Great work.

I think if you make them for support, the carriers should get a bouns to amount repped by armor and sheild maintaing drones.

like 5% to amount reped per lvl or even 10%.

now they could be able to send 5 heavy armor or sheild drones to help 4 gang mates.
if they are ment for support they should work best as a suportrole, both with dam and healing.

busta nut
State Protectorate
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:29:00 - [562]
 

Originally by: Blind Man
awesome changes guys, don't listen to the whiners here. everyone knows it needs to be done and anyone who says otherwise is just angry that their pwnmobiles got taken away


yes, completely ignore the 600 people opposed to this idea and listen to just this guy Rolling Eyes

silence pls

Il Reverendo
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:30:00 - [563]
 

Originally by: CCP Abathur
Ladies and Gentlemen, please rest assured that the Dev team is paying attention to this thread. Don't take it all out on Zulu; he was just the messenger. As was stated in the original blog this is an idea and we thank you all for your constructive input. Please feel free to continue voicing what your concerns are and we will do our best to address them. Smile


My chief concern is your use of the present tense when describing this idea; please address my concerns by changing that to "this was an idea".

Very Happy

Elementatia
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:30:00 - [564]
 

Why do think you need to change the fightingpower of the carrier ?
A Carrier is a powerfull weapon.
It is big, it is tough and it is very expensive.

You should not change the fighting abilities of a carrier per se, but you may change signatur size for his drones (only efficent against other capital ships).
Or go another way. Look at those normal "earth" Carriers at the sea. They do need support, because they are slow (they canīt follow a fleeing enemy), they do need much fuel and are expensive to run (Need for support fleet for fuel purposes).
And after all. If a carrier is camping alone, then why donīt you give some bombers a bonus for hitting the carrier harder with EW-Weapons (of yourse with longer targeting to calibrate his bombs (That would mean the bomber would need support by a remote repairing unit but the bomber would be a threat for the carrier. Not to destroy, but to disable some of his abilities for a while)) ?

Tarron Sarek
Gallente
Biotronics Inc.
Initiative Mercenaries
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:31:00 - [565]
 

Originally by: Armus Jenson
To be quite Honest, Fighters do cost 50x as much as your frigate.
Dude, I'm flying Recons, Battleships and HACs. I simply referred to frigates, as frigates and Assault Ships are pretty much useless and unpopular atm.
Apart from that, please read carefully. I proposed a cost change, so please don't interpret to your liking.

Capital ships need a weak point or weak points. Otherwise the core concept is bigger=better, which Imho is a very bad game design, 'cause it tends to fail terribly in the long run.

Rusty PwnStar
Centus Inc.
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:31:00 - [566]
 

Originally by: Tarron Sarek
Now THIS is the problem Zulupark & others. Firepower is all that matters in most players' heads.
Way to go creating the Thanatos and Nyx with their unique (regarding carriers) damage bonus. Which ships do low sec gankers fly again?
If at all, each race's carrier could've received a 2-3% racial damage bonus, i.e. 2% per lvl thermal fighter dmg for gallente, 2% per lvl EM for Amarr, etc.
But then again, why give a support ship a gank bonus in the first place? Why not making drone control units seriously seriously gimp a carrier's tanking and/or retreat abilities? In addition to huge CPU and Powergrid needs a mass/agility penalty might increase balance.


Why nerf all Carriers and MS, just because MS gank nubs in low sec.
Just nerf their use there.

afaik most lowsec MS gankers use smartbombs anyway.

DJTheBaron
Caldari
FinFleet
KenZoku
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:31:00 - [567]
 

I could understand limiting drones to reduce lagg, if they recieved a damage bonus like domi/ishtar.

However i dont know where your getting the math that fighters wtf pwn bs. My carrier with 9 drones cant kill a bs in less than 2 minuites, and if they tank or plate then i cant kill them.

You have also completley taken motherships out of the equasion. Thay do twice the damage of a carrier, and barley tank twice as hard, and are invul to ewar. Now they will only be ewar invul carriers.

It is completley irresponsable to make the change as proposed. People have trained for years, the ships are almost 2 years old. For a player playing eve for 4 years, and comiting 2 years of their skil tree to fly capital ships to the best of their ability, are are effectivley removing 12-18months of their hard work and gimping their isk investment. If someone has taken the time to level 5 their drone skills in every field, level 5 their ship and perhaps another race. because they can only deploy 25%-50% worth of the drones they could in the past, and any fighters deployed to a gang made DO NOT carry the capital ships skills over. You have effectivley shafted anyone who put the time in.

We are not talking neft an overpowered easily accessable ship worth <200mil fitted and 3-6 months training time. We are talking Over nerf a powerful ship to the tune of 2-5bil a fully drones and fitted carrier or 30-50 bil fitted mothership, each with 1-2 years of skill points invested.

Seriousily consider this when balancing the game, otherwise those extra weeks and months per extra 5% bonus in level 5 are a complete insult to every player you ask to train them.

Davlin Lotze
Raging Destruction
N.A.S.A
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:32:00 - [568]
 

Edited by: Davlin Lotze on 21/10/2007 16:33:03
The biggest problem here is that CCP INACCURATELY PERCEIVES a problem to exist where one in fact does not.

All this horsedung about "moms are overpowered solopwnmobiles" has went to their heads.

CCP chose poorly when they decided to listen to the pillow humping, mouth breathing, short bus crowd that really really just wants caps to "Go away" altogether in Eve. They don't think that they are listening to that group or that the "get rid of caps" is that group's ultimate goal. But rest assured it is. Perhaps not "get rid" in a literal sense, but "neuter beyond usefulness" is more appropriate.

No solution that CCP fashions will be acceptable as long as they grossly misperceive "the problem."

The real problem is that 20 mil isk ships can lock down billions in supercap. And, not only that, that 20mil isk ship along with large bubbles have introduced an "i-win" element to closing off entire sections of space to non-cap movement. Spend a few months rebalancing THAT if you need something to do to justify your jobs :)

Yaay
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:37:00 - [569]
 

Originally by: Davlin Lotze
Edited by: Davlin Lotze on 21/10/2007 16:33:03
The biggest problem here is that CCP INACCURATELY PERCEIVES a problem to exist where one in fact does not.

All this horsedung about "moms are overpowered solopwnmobiles" has went to their heads.

CCP chose poorly when they decided to listen to the pillow humping, mouth breathing, short bus crowd that really really just wants caps to "Go away" altogether in Eve. They don't think that they are listening to that group or that the "get rid of caps" is that group's ultimate goal. But rest assured it is. Perhaps not "get rid" in a literal sense, but "neuter beyond usefulness" is more appropriate.

No solution that CCP fashions will be acceptable as long as they grossly misperceive "the problem."

The real problem is that 20 mil isk ships can lock down billions in supercap. And, not only that, that 20mil isk ship along with large bubbles have introduced an "i-win" element to closing off entire sections of space to non-cap movement. Spend a few months rebalancing THAT if you need something to do to justify your jobs :)



He is right, Dictors have done way more harm than good when it comes to 0.0. Whether they're fun or not is a different issue. Dictors were a solution to a problem of nanos and stabs.... yet here we still have nano's and stabs

Pallidum Treponema
Body Count Inc.
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2007.10.21 16:37:00 - [570]
 

Originally by: Emsigma
I think that people should unfock themselves and start realizing that this is players vs devs and not bob vs goons+devs.

Some of the best ideas in this thread has come from goons and some of the most vocal resistance has been from goons.

NOONE gains from this suggestion while EVERYONE loses =/


This! If nothing else, this devblog has caused me to respect goons a whole lot more.


Pages: first : previous : ... 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 23 ... : last (110)

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


 


The new forums are live

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

These forums are archived and read-only