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 : ... 25 26 27 28 [29] 30 31 32 33 ... : last (110)

Author Topic

Acacia Everto
INTERNET HARBLRAGE
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:26:00 - [841]
 

Edited by: Acacia Everto on 21/10/2007 20:27:18
CCP Zulupark,
I apologize on behalf of the playerbase at our strong reaction to your idea and our subsequent taking out of our frustration on you. You aren't an idiot, it's just we don't think your idea is going the right way.

1) It would make Carriers even LESS frontline.
2) POS hugging. This would be even more of a feature of Carriers that "just" delegate.
3) In my capital, I want to be able to jump in on a fight and make a difference. Not jump in, spend forever delegating my now damage-nerfed (delegation kills our skill/ship bonii) fighters, and then shoot spitwads at them with my remaining fighters while Dreads lob XL charges at my hull.

As they are now, Carriers and Motherships are fine when it comes to drones. They die every day in battle, and heaven forbid a Carrier is caught alone, it'll be dead in minutes. The real problem lies with Motherships.

Motherships need to be restricted to 0.0, or lose their EWAR immunity in empire. Perhaps CONCORD requiring that all electronic warfare disruption systems be disabled for all ships entering empire territory. This would make MoMs not solopwnmobiles and make it a genuine risk to field one in lowsec. That's why they are such a problem. Carriers can be tackled and destroyed by small gangs and aren't really a problem at all. Whenever I see a Thanatos around, I don't worry about it, I can avoid it or damp it to hell and leave, or get together a gang to kill it. It's a Nyx that worries me.

My corp (the one StratComm is from, who also posted in this thread) uses Carriers for all sorts of operations, and they really have to be ready to help defend themselves and take on some of the load, as our corp really isn't that big. I'd fly my battleships and die first, but if I'm flying my Dominix, it's to our advantage that I can use my Ogre IIs and Strat his fighters. That's an example anyways. As a Carrier pilot, I likely would delegate fighters some of the time if the damage bonus given by Fighters/Gallente Carrier was kept. But I want the option to control my own during battle.

Also, in the future, instead of presenting it as a change. Say in big bold letters "THIS IS AN IDEA, NOT A NERF. Please give feedback and ideas on how to improve. Until we get a better idea of the situation, there will be no changes to Carriers." and maybe you won't get such a ****ed off response, and instead more level-headed thoughtful remarks.

Strategos
Genco
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:26:00 - [842]
 

Originally by: XoPhyte
Edited by: XoPhyte on 21/10/2007 20:14:58
Originally by: Strategos


Actually, it does. I take it you've never seen a capital blob consisting of 30+ carriers and 5+ moms? Making them only be able to field 5 drones THEMSELVES reduces the number of drones on the field in capitals blobs by a lot. This now forces carrier/mom pilots to assign fighters to their support fleet (meaning they are no longer the offensive weapon they are today) instead of roasting a BS by themselves in a couple seconds.


Translation:

I have not invested the time, effort or isk for a carrier myself and therefore they should be nerfed for everyone else.



Grow up Xo. Carriers and Motherships won't be the offensive weapons you use them for anymore. They were never meant to be offensive weapons in the first place. They will now depend on a support fleet to work at their full potential, which is how they were always meant to be.

Zenobite
The Red Exhilez
LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:26:00 - [843]
 

Edited by: Zenobite on 21/10/2007 20:27:52
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
Righto then.


1. Do you like this idea (that is the more-support-oriented idea)?
2. If so, do you like the approach we're thinking about (fighter deployment limits)?
3. If you liked the idea but no the solution, what propositions do you have?
4. If you don't like the idea at all, why not?



1. Guess it depends on your definition of support role, mine would be remote reps etc, not spending an entire battle sitting at a pos juggling fighter assignments.

2. and 3. I really don't have any idea how this will balance anything.

4. Adds unnecessary complication, will give defenders a massive advantage, doesn't really achieve anything.


Snakebloke
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas.
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:27:00 - [844]
 

Edited by: Snakebloke on 21/10/2007 20:28:03
Originally by: Gyle
Edited by: Gyle on 21/10/2007 20:14:38
Originally by: Strategos
I love all the crying in this thread.

Good change CCP! I support this 100%. Less drones on the field is always a good thing (especially from capital blobs consisting of 30+ carriers and 5+ Moms)! Increasing drone damage and HP a bit more for Motherships/Carriers would make up for the number reduction, though even if you didn't up the damage a little bit for them I still support this 100%.

Either way, I like it!


noob whose gonna play the game for 4 months and then quit. and ccp is more worried about keeping peeps like that interested rather then listen to the veiws and opinions of its long standing members who own many multiple accounts.


Sickening



F**K YEAH dude Mad

FLAME 61
Caldari
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:27:00 - [845]
 

I do not understand that it will correct, is more likely simple carrier/ms will simply cease to exist in game. I swing кариер at present, but at such turn of event I do not see in it sense if only to repair or something to transport.

Patch86
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:28:00 - [846]
 

The fact that every major Capship owner in the game is in here complaining tells me that its probably a good move Razz


Seriously though, I don't buy the whole "I trained 6 months for it, I SHOULD be invincible!" argument. Capital ships take a long time to train and cost a fair amount, yes. But that doesn't necessarily mean they should simply be the next "better ship". Thats exactly the thing CCP have been trying to avoid with T2 BSs.

The trend at the moment seems to be that as more and more people become capital capable, more and more capital blobs are being used. And this makes it more and more useless bringing non-capitals to a fleet fight at all. Not that I'm saying non-capitals will ever be truly useless, since a large enough group of anything can beat a small enough group of anything else, and the laws of the game mean that 1 carrier < 1 carrier + 1 battleship. But still, a 50 strong fleet of carriers, dreads and supercaps is a pretty pointless target to any non-capital opponent.


And is that really the direction EVE wants to go? A place where only 1 year veterans can even think of competing in 0.0, and everyone else should stay in Empire until they've ground out the mandatory skill set? I thought the whole beauty of EVE was that every single ship, right down to the T1 frigates, had a legitimate role in serious competition. Carriers and Dreads and such need to have a purpose that is legitimately worth more than a billion iskies, but isn't a one-way trip to solopwntown.

The Blog's suggested change is that their DPS remains as high as it is now, it's tank remains the same, they stay the same speed, price, and keep all their bonuses, but that now you need to fly with some friends to use their full potential. And since everything in cap ship design to date (cyno as a means of travel, and siege/triage 10 minute immobility as examples) tries to make the ships reliant on support fleets for use, I'd say that this is at least a good opening suggestion.

Dragy
Caldari
United Constructions
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:28:00 - [847]
 

Originally by: Prolapse
Please don't just whine try to think of somthing constructive.

Stupidy should be laughed at, not treated with care and understanding.

Cadiz
Caldari
EXTERMINATUS.
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:29:00 - [848]
 

How exactly does this idea encourage front-line carrier usage? By making carriers 100% reliant upon delegation, we're just going to go back to the dark ages of "oh, sit at a POS and assign fighters", even though numerous changes (inability to assign fighters inside POS shields, going inside POS shields automatically de-delegates fighters) went directly contrary to that inclination and helped encourage the use of carriers in a front-line role.

Oh well, this is why I trained for a carrier on my alt...it always seemed to be an alt's job, what with the sitting at POSes, letting everybody else have all the fun, and only incidentally running a few cycles of remote repping on people who have warped out from a fight. For a while I was rethinking that philosophy to carrier usage after some fun bouts of using my carrier as a direct combat force multiplier, but if this thing goes through we're right back to that initial school of thought, and then I feel sorry for everybody who trained carriers on their mains. Enjoy watching your POS shields ripple while your buddies are out blowing stuff up. ugh

RwPnIKn
Caldari
Orange Nova
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:29:00 - [849]
 

The worst ideea ever to change carriers and motherships. They will be useless. I want to have fun in game, to acctualy play not to sit in a damn POS delegating fighters for hours. This is plain stupid.

SnakeArts
Extreme Intentions Inc.
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:29:00 - [850]
 

This idea is just bad, after spending so much time and effort training skills to be able to fly a carrier. And gathering the funds together you come up with this idea. I do not post much but this is not the way forward.

Nerfing in this way will as many have stated render the carrier too expensive to risk. It will turn into a capital hauler, pos hugger and nothing more.

I dont see a problem in the way carrier's currently work and if this change was imposed the only thing my carrier would be good for is to shift my loot to empire. I wouldnt even bother risking it as the risk is high enough as it stands. A waste of sp for me and a few months of hard slog to get the isk together and train the skills. I could of trained a few other things in the time it took to train carrier.

Snake

Mr Friendly
The Lost and The Damned
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:30:00 - [851]
 

Very glad I stopped training for Carriers. This change just encourages larger gangs so the carrier pilot can assign his fighters. I guess it's a small dps drop overall since I assume the assignees don't retain the fighter drone damage bonus. However, this just encourages lag.

However, I don't see why carriers should not be high-damage. Their triage mode seems an ill thought out way to die, their cargo carrying got nerfed a while back, and they aren't that great at acting as tactical support. They cap fairly quickly and take a long time to target friendlies for repping. What else is left but killing other ships?

Removing their combat effectiveness reduces their thing they are good at. Unless CCP adds bonuses to make them into a larger version of the logistics ship (or otherwise makes them effective at a particular role), they are simply insulting those that have spent all that time to train for the carrier, and all that isk the ships, skills and mods have cost.

CCP, give them a role and let them keep it, okay? Otherwise you're not 'balancing', you're 'nerfing'. Please stop nerfing one thing unless you try to add value on something else.

Strategos
Genco
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:30:00 - [852]
 

Originally by: Snakebloke
Edited by: Snakebloke on 21/10/2007 20:28:03
Originally by: Gyle
Edited by: Gyle on 21/10/2007 20:14:38
Originally by: Strategos
I love all the crying in this thread.

Good change CCP! I support this 100%. Less drones on the field is always a good thing (especially from capital blobs consisting of 30+ carriers and 5+ Moms)! Increasing drone damage and HP a bit more for Motherships/Carriers would make up for the number reduction, though even if you didn't up the damage a little bit for them I still support this 100%.

Either way, I like it!


noob whose gonna play the game for 4 months and then quit. and ccp is more worried about keeping peeps like that interested rather then listen to the veiws and opinions of its long standing members who own many multiple accounts.


Sickening



F**K YEAH dude Mad


Way to make baseless accusations! I have been in 0.0 for over 2 years now, thank you very much! This is the main of my second account. This character is training Gall, my main on my first account is Caldari. Im sure the spies in BoB/MC w/e can tell you this as I freely admit both characters are mine when they are both in the same gang.

Silvion
Kodan Industries
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:30:00 - [853]
 

Edited by: Silvion on 21/10/2007 20:37:10
Ok, I understand why someone decided to try this but............

This idea of transforming Carriers into capital logistics ships with limited firepower is a direct contradiction to what has been taught in every naval school for the last century. In the real world, capital ships (i.e. the Iowa Class Battleship and Nimitz Class Carrier for the U.S. Navy, the Queen Elizabeth Class of the U.K. and the Bismark Class of Germany in WWII) act as the centerpiece of naval fleets. The reason for this is simple to the extreme:

THE CAPITAL SHIP IS THE ONE BEST SUITED TO THE PROJECTION OF COMBAT POWER! NOT SUPPORTING OTHER SHIPS!

Capital ships exist to project power, to force your enemies to adapt to the fact that a massive amount of firepower is arrayed against them. Capital ships are, for the most part, unable to act alone however. Look at the U.S. Navy Carrier Battle Group. Each Carrier of the U.S. Navy is escorted at all times while at see by Ticonderoga Class Missile Cruisers for missile defense, frigates and destroyers for anti-submarine defense, and fleet replenishment vessels to keep consumable stores aboard the carrier up. Why the massive number of escorts? Simple, the capital ship is unable to do EVERYTHING itself.

The same is true of EVE Capital Ships for the most part. A single Dreadnought or Carrier operating alone is a formidable target to be sure, but at the same time it is vulnerable to a group of smaller ships. Carriers are better able to defend themselves from gangs due to the large drone bays allowing them to carry numerous different types of drones, but at the same time, capital ships can be locked down and destroyed from a capital killing gang. Dreadnoughts, like the Battleships of our Real Life Navies, have issues tracking and destroying a large number of smaller, more manueverable ships.

Where does that leave us? Simple. EVE Capital Ships, with the exception of the Moros (please fix that drone bonus), operate most efficiently while supported by other smaller ships. Super-capital motherships and titans face the same problems. Can a mothership operate for a solo pirate in lowsec? Certainly. But at the same time I recall reading that the first mothership to be destroyed in lowsec occurred a few weeks ago. Capital Ships are supposed to project power for your corporation or alliance, not support a fleet of small ships. Naval Doctorine has taught for over a century that the centerpiece of the fleet is the capital ship, to project combat power in the most efficient way possible.

Blood Ghost
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:30:00 - [854]
 

Gave up reading after the fourth page, I know whatís been said below has been mentioned before but I just wanted to add my voice to it.


______________________________________________________


All I see is more reason to NOT bring a carrier to the front line.


If I can not use my stronger locking strength to take control of my fighters and order them all on one target I see no reason to move beyond the safety of POS gun range.


All the time spent on skills, training and ISK and I have to sit next to a POS? Doing anything else is to risk losing all the DPS you would be adding to the fleet along with a multi-billion ISK ship.


Support? Use logistic ships, cheaper and they donít paint a big red lag filled bullís-eye on the screen.



Not Impressed Crying or Very sad


Snakebloke
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas.
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:32:00 - [855]
 

Originally by: Patch86
The fact that every major Capship owner in the game is in here complaining tells me that its probably a good move Razz


Seriously though, I don't buy the whole "I trained 6 months for it, I SHOULD be invincible!" argument. Capital ships take a long time to train and cost a fair amount, yes. But that doesn't necessarily mean they should simply be the next "better ship". Thats exactly the thing CCP have been trying to avoid with T2 BSs.

The trend at the moment seems to be that as more and more people become capital capable, more and more capital blobs are being used. And this makes it more and more useless bringing non-capitals to a fleet fight at all. Not that I'm saying non-capitals will ever be truly useless, since a large enough group of anything can beat a small enough group of anything else, and the laws of the game mean that 1 carrier < 1 carrier + 1 battleship. But still, a 50 strong fleet of carriers, dreads and supercaps is a pretty pointless target to any non-capital opponent.


And is that really the direction EVE wants to go? A place where only 1 year veterans can even think of competing in 0.0, and everyone else should stay in Empire until they've ground out the mandatory skill set? I thought the whole beauty of EVE was that every single ship, right down to the T1 frigates, had a legitimate role in serious competition. Carriers and Dreads and such need to have a purpose that is legitimately worth more than a billion iskies, but isn't a one-way trip to solopwntown.

The Blog's suggested change is that their DPS remains as high as it is now, it's tank remains the same, they stay the same speed, price, and keep all their bonuses, but that now you need to fly with some friends to use their full potential. And since everything in cap ship design to date (cyno as a means of travel, and siege/triage 10 minute immobility as examples) tries to make the ships reliant on support fleets for use, I'd say that this is at least a good opening suggestion.


I see what your getting at and i agree, i dont want eve to be come a big capital slugfest, but i still do not think this is the way to go about it. I am far more inclined to go on the negative side of this suggestion as i have kept playing eve with the intention of getting a carrier. now if this change comes into effect, i feel that one would not be worth the investment. If you want to make them more useless like this then fine, but virtually noone will use them.

AS far as logistics is concerned, jump frieghters? rorquals? why use a carrier or mother ship....

and as far as helping others, why get a carrier with a triage module when you can get a gang of 5/6 obelisks/guardians and be far more effective... it doesnt make sense.


Telorast
Caldari
Helljumpers
White Noise.
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:33:00 - [856]
 

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


Why change that? When the capitals are finally balanced.

It's seriously too late to change the role of a carrier.
Or at least if you change them you need to add another everyday capital fighting ship that fills the role carriers are now used as.

Sjoor
S.A.S
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:33:00 - [857]
 

So you want ms to be low sec smartbomb gankers, or sit next to forcefield in pos assigning fighters.

Who would take a MS to frontline when you can do the same with a cheapass logistics ship. I rather have 10 logistics ships in station and grab 10 in a fight than use a MS that can only do the damage of a BS.

If you think to much fighters are around, change the fighters, make the ship bonus 80% bonus to drone and fighter damage. increase hitpoints by 80% per lvl. Carriers should get a 40% bonus. Basicly every1 still has 5 drones but they do the damage of the original 20. or 10 (maybe tweak the numbers a little, not doing math on sunday evening. of course the same for the use of normal drones. Kinda crappy to turn carriers and ms into logistics ships with insane hitpoints but no damage output.

If this will happen, you won't see MS on the frontline anymore besides low sec smartbombing MS pirates.

And for the logistics role... the nice module takes away drone control, so the bull**** about controlling less drones cause you need to fill in a logistic role... triage module: -100% to max active drone modifier. it's already ingame..

I see this whole change in the line need for speed. Every1 knows that 4 ms in a fleetbattle launching 20 fighters each creates huge lag. Let's face that problem and not rename it in some ****ty way about a role change.

As a finish:

Aeon: Ships like the Aeon have been with the Empire for a long time. They have remained a mainstay of Amarr expansion as, hopeful for a new beginning beyond the blasted horizon, whole cities of settlers sojourn from their time-worn homesteads to try their luck on infant worlds. The Aeon represents the largest ship of its kind in the history of the Empire, capable of functioning as a mobile citadel in addition to fielding powerful armaments. (note that it does not say, bring a little damage and delegate 3 times a little damage)

Greets Sjoor

Yazoul Samaiel
Caldari
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:34:00 - [858]
 

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



Do you actualy play this game or the time u spend in low sec ganking has diminished what ever IQ you got left ?

A Carrier is hardly a pwnmobile if anyone with a sense tries to fight it how ever turning it to the same fire power as a t1 bs in the name of "Balance" is as dumb as your post along with ur low sec buddy le skunk .


TBH the last streak of nerfs CCP has been doing is just going into the direction of nerfign veteran plays and taking fun out of the advanced area of the game just coz some whiners cant deal with the fact that there are ppl who have been playing for years and have invested a lot to get such advantages.

Marco Marques
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:34:00 - [859]
 

I spent a bunch of time training for the carrier, then spent another bunch training the fighters up and then spent another bunch getting the jump drive skills up and now they're doing this to us? I guess I'l just leave the game if they implement this. Carriers are weak as it is and they want to nerf it further? No way

Cosmos Elf
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:35:00 - [860]
 

RIP BoB!

I for one welcome our new dev supported goon overlords. All hail the blob.

KillinVillin
Gallente
Synergy.
Imperial Republic Of the North
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:35:00 - [861]
 

Originally by: Crimsonjade
might possibly the worst idea ever ccp.

you: What we want is pretty basic: We want to make fighter wielding capital ships more reliant on their support fleet and less of a direct Łber deathbringer.

me: not sure what game your playing but fly a carrier in pvp once pls before you tell me its a uber deathbringer

you :Well, we have an idea, and before you go ballistic remember that this is an idea and weĎre still working on it

me : heard ford and GM are going to make conbustable cars that double as bbq's, but they at least don't advertise the fact

you: Not only do we want to limit the amount of fighters you can launch, but also the amount of drones! Yes, we want to limit carriers and motherships just like other ships, i.e. they should only be able to field 5 regular drones at any given time

me: im speechless i mean truly WTF do want the carrier to be now? a logistics ship?


after 4 years in eve i really truly dislike this idea INTENSLY enough to question my staying here if we have to nerf a ship class so badly its completly non useful unless we get a gang to support it. and its not excatly a titan ya know. it cant DD and take out its close in enemys.

seriously i think your headed in the wrong direction here. completely wrong direction

i more for you guys figuring out a way to lessen the bandwith the drones use, or something else.whatever your trying to do,this isnt the way.

this is way to drastic to even be looked at seriously imo


Thank's you put it nicely, I would have just blown a gasket if no one pointed out the obvious.
A Glory Hole Dominix :) Err... Glorified Dominix. Here i thought they were giving us the Ultimate logistic support ship in the game.

But wait there's more here's 5 Drones that you can satisfy your thirst with. Let's remind you that it's just another drone boat. Is it lag? A MotherShip ship's might make you lag? It's a MotherShip Not just "Anothership".

Would you like to buy "Anothership" @12-15b. Most drone pilot's would kill for more drones. People buy alt's so they can control 10 drones... In the end, if it's lag just say it and stop Jerkin my Drone.


Cadiz
Caldari
EXTERMINATUS.
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:35:00 - [862]
 

Triage mode is really quite terrible unless you're repping POSes in perfect safety. I wish people would stop mentioning it, because I don't know any combat carrier pilot who even bothers with fitting one except as an emergency "well, maybe I can survive for a few minutes extra until help arrives" button - and even then there are usually far more appealing things to fit in those highs, like smartbombs to help scare off small support.

Eternal Fate
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:35:00 - [863]
 

Originally by: Yazoul Samaiel
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



Do you actualy play this game or the time u spend in low sec ganking has diminished what ever IQ you got left ?

A Carrier is hardly a pwnmobile if anyone with a sense tries to fight it how ever turning it to the same fire power as a t1 bs in the name of "Balance" is as dumb as your post along with ur low sec buddy le skunk .


TBH the last streak of nerfs CCP has been doing is just going into the direction of nerfign veteran plays and taking fun out of the advanced area of the game just coz some whiners cant deal with the fact that there are ppl who have been playing for years and have invested a lot to get such advantages.



I fully agree and tbqh imo you need your eyes checking if you think this is a good idea.

Arctur Gestator
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:37:00 - [864]
 

*snip* Constructive posting means not having to say "I got moderated". -Rauth

Gyle
Caldari
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
Atlas Alliance
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:38:00 - [865]
 

Originally by: Strategos
Originally by: XoPhyte
Edited by: XoPhyte on 21/10/2007 20:14:58
Originally by: Strategos


Actually, it does. I take it you've never seen a capital blob consisting of 30+ carriers and 5+ moms? Making them only be able to field 5 drones THEMSELVES reduces the number of drones on the field in capitals blobs by a lot. This now forces carrier/mom pilots to assign fighters to their support fleet (meaning they are no longer the offensive weapon they are today) instead of roasting a BS by themselves in a couple seconds.


Translation:

I have not invested the time, effort or isk for a carrier myself and therefore they should be nerfed for everyone else.



Grow up Xo. Carriers and Motherships won't be the offensive weapons you use them for anymore. They were never meant to be offensive weapons in the first place. They will now depend on a support fleet to work at their full potential, which is how they were always meant to be.


your wrong. carriers and motherships were meant to be the way they are otherwise quiet simply they wouldn be like that.

Apocalytica Insomnia
Blue Labs
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:39:00 - [866]
 

I have a rediculous Idea, and in my mind its so simple i wonder it did not become mentioned before.

If your looking at Motherships ganking on gates in 0.1-0.4 space, why not make it impossible for em to enter the grid surounding the gate?
Like with a Force-Bubble protecting the POS-Tower, something similar could protect such a Gate from Ewar-invulnarable Ships.


Cailais
Amarr
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:39:00 - [867]
 

First off, Im not a carrier or mom pilot, Ive fought them -never flown them (except on 'geddon day Very Happy).

Id suggest a moment of pause. Let's see what impact (if any) the T2 Cov Op BS and Heavy Dictors have to Fleet Warfare.

My feeling is, the best way for a Carrier to provide support is to make it act more like a true Carrier; allow it to act as a "Jump in point" for smaller ship classes like Frigates, Intys, and AFs. A mobile cyno geny if you like. An FC could then call in a frigate swarm from several jumps away, rather than rely on the current 'fighter blob'.

Moms would act in a similiar fashion, but for larger classes of vessel - namely Destroyer, Dictor, Cruiser and HAC/Hdict.

But like I said, Id suggest a moments pause.

C.


Baun
4S Corporation
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:40:00 - [868]
 

Originally by: CCP Zulupark

That's when we decided to just blog the idea, and get some feedback on 2 things:
1. Do you like this idea (that is the more-support-oriented idea)?
2. If so, do you like the approach we're thinking about (fighter deployment limits)?
3. If you liked the idea but no the solution, what propositions do you have?
4. If you don't like the idea at all, why not?



1) No. The ship is already support oriented and has a unique role that is required to field large capital gangs.

2) No. Limiting the offensive ability of the ship does absolutely nothing to make them "more support oriented." Without the ability to deal damage, they will NEVER be placed in grid in a fleet battle because primary targets smaller than a capital do not have the HP to survive long enough even while being remote repped by a carrier

3) The idea is highly stupid. Clarify what it is supposed to be a solution to before you even propose the next one.

4) The idea accomplishes absolutely nothing. It will increase lag by requiring even larger gangs when fielding carriers and it will not put carriers on the front lines because it eliminates the need to do so. Furthermore, it changes the goalposts well over two years into the implimentation of capitals and super-capitals and it eliminates the distintion between carriers and motherships. A carrier can alreayd be disabled by a single tech two cruiser. A carrier now is a non-damaging pile of crap and a mothership is a non-damaging pile of crap that can repair other non-damaging piles of crap. I hope thats the distinction you were going for.

Quote:


Are you doing this to decrease lag
No, this is purely balancing ideas, nothing to do with lag or server load



What are you trying to balance? All you have done is completely disabled the offensive ability of two ship classes that aren't even overpowered at the moment while augmenting no other features of those ships. In what universe is this a balancing suggestion?

Quote:

Have you even played EVE or taken part in a fleet fight?
Yes



Are you sure about this? Please re-read Seleene's post about how complicated a carrier pilot's role already is. If you have EVER been in that situation you know that your idea is absolute pure fantasy and that no one will ever be able to do what carrier pilots currently do and actively reassign fighters like you propose.

Quote:

Why shouldn't a mothership be able to defend itself????
For you others: It can still defend itself, but let's be real, why would you ever get yourself into a situation where the last line of defense between you and an attacking fleet are you fighters?



Thats the whole point. The mothership already cannot defend itself solo (have you not seen what happens to solo MS pilots in 0.0 these days), so WHY remove its offensive ability? Can you please answer that question. Why are you doing this? This accomplishes absolutely nothing other than to remove two ship classes from the game.

Quote:

There won't be any difference between a Carrier and a Mothership!!
If this change nullifies the difference between those two ships, what's the difference today?


If you cannot answer this question, then I don't see how you can be proposing this change. The difference is that because of the current offensive capabilities of the two ship classes, they will be kept in grid. Whilst in grid the EW immunity of a mothership is an ENORMOUS logistical advantage. If you add the increased firepower of a mothership (which you are removing) you have your ms>carrier reasons.

If you remove the reason for the ships to be in grid then you make their logistics capabilities irrelevant. Since the ships don't need to repair each other because they won't be in the fleet fight and they have the same firepower you have just eliminated any need to ever have a mothership in a combat related situation.

Do you understand the effects of your proposed change now?

Recalesence
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:41:00 - [869]
 

Edited by: Recalesence on 21/10/2007 20:55:01
Who wants my stuff. EI) torp nerf was bad enough, they are equal to artillery not fking blasters
I already do 1150 dps @ 110km I dont need 1600dps @ 25km

Caldari Control towers suck bad enough now its time to sell the DG torp battery bpc's because using them will be laughable.

besides who is going to even feild a raven with the 2 slot tank option you leave them with.
give the raven 8 med slots or make heavy assault torpedos.

Im betting CCP looses more player base then it'll gain due to people simply not going to timesink 2 months into cruise spec to 5 just to pass the lvl4 vengence mission alone.

But now carriers too.. first its out of the shields, thats ok, but now its no different then any other ship?

That drone nerf way back when where the moro/domi could deploy 30/10 drones were given a mining drone ammount bonus to compensate for the same reasons they were given damage bonus's then later taken away because whoever is in charge of changing those things now doesnt even remember why it was there in the first place?..

This seems to be the direction CCP is headed in because they are confused about where they want caps to go... So im saddened that i've just spec'ed 4 chars to jumpdriveop5 because I'll probably just play a different game when this patch comes out.


Clavius XIV
Auctoritan Syndicate
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2007.10.21 20:41:00 - [870]
 

Edited by: Clavius XIV on 21/10/2007 20:41:43
Originally by: Cadiz
What's wrong with carriers playing the role of "front-line logistics" AND "front-line direct fire support"?



Because it makes bringing something that just does "front-line direct fire support" (ie Battleships) pointless?

The result we can already see in this thread. Practically EVERYONE has carriers in their skill plan. In the leading edge Alliances such as MC you see the backbone of their fleets are carriers. In 12 more months without a balance adjustment that will be the nature of fleets throught the cluster.

Each class of ship should have a role. There should be a reason to bring a BS over a carrier besides isk, and skilltime. With this change there will be. Want firesupport? Bring BS (or dreads for capital battles). Want defense/logistics? Bring carriers/Moms.


Pages: first : previous : ... 25 26 27 28 [29] 30 31 32 33 ... : 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