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 : 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (110)

Author Topic

The Medusa
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:07:00 - [91]
 

I like this.
* It will allow for any gang attacking / defending to keep they're firepower.
* It will limit the small gank-gangs in low-sec.. And we all know they shouldn't be there.
* For assaults on POS's, equal numbers of none-gallente dreads and carriers will allow for the same number of fighters hitting the POS modules.
It will somewhat limit the repair-ammounts when repping POS modules / station services, but, mehh.. still this sounds like a decent fix.


In my eyes, every last one of the patches made to 'game mechanics' have been successfull ..

Aramendel
Amarr
Queens of the Stone Age
Black Legion.
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:07:00 - [92]
 

Originally by: Stellar Vix
Second!

Wow chibbera beat me by a few seconds :(


First! Razz

*cough*

Anyway, the core problem with this change is that you'll change carrier instead to "the-ships-that-keep-other-ships-alive-and-provide-them-with-additional-firepower ships" to "the-ships-that-hug-a-POS-and-delegate-fighters".

Their remote rep abilities are just not enough to justify using them on the frontlines. especially since that can be disabled too easily with damps.
The triage mode is no solution there since it also removes all their firepower.

Maybe if triage would be changed to allow fighters now or if a new triage variation would be introduced, one without the rep amount bonuses and the fighter control reduction, but with the EW immunity and sig res bonuses.

In either case, this change - doesn't matter if it is good or bad - is a massive de-promotion to put carriers on the frontlines. They need some carrot to justify their frontline use.

ArmyOfMe
Hysera.
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:08:00 - [93]
 

Honestly, if you dont want capital ships in the game then just come out and say it...
And for gods sake just give us back the isk invested in the skills and ships and give us back our sp and we will be on our merry way once again.
But unless you do that this will be the worst ****ing change ever for every carrier/mom pilot out there.

If i had even had the slightes idea that you would even consider nerfing the ships this much i would never have trained for them in the first place

Rodent
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:08:00 - [94]
 

Originally by: 0mega
I don't see how this achieves anything but nerfing low-sec motherships.

What's wrong with implementing the various classes of fighters spotted on SiSi over the last couple of months? Have assignable frigate, cruiser and BS-sized drones each optimized for killing their own class. The new drone bandwidth system can then determine how many can then be deployed at once, with frigate-class hitting the current limits (15 carrier / 25 ms) but battleships more limited (say 5 per carrier / 10 per ms). The total dps of say 5 heavier BS-fighters would be more comparable to current carrier dps of 10-15 current fighters.

Alot of the current 'blobbing' of fighters is intended to combat BS and capital-heavy fleets. Now in order for that to reach effective dps, carriers and MSes will need to deploy far small numbers of heavier fighters. Lower numbers of fighters on grid means less grid loading lag, motherships and carriers are still as effective providing additional firepower, and of course there's still a reason to make an MS over a carrier.

Tetsujin
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:08:00 - [95]
 

Edited by: Tetsujin on 21/10/2007 12:08:38
Originally by: Tetsujin
Does this change come in conjunction with altering fighter code to reduce the amount of lag they create, or is this your theorized resolution to that problem?


Please answer this question as it is the most succinct version of what is on everyone's mind.

James Duar
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:08:00 - [96]
 

Originally by: Kali Ma
What is the point of getting a mothership now, If you spend 30bill + the fittings you should expect it to be a death bringer and uber, If CCP keeps up with this policy a lot of people will have nothing to strive for in this game.
Its well seen CCP caters for the forum whiners and not the long term players who wish to keep on developing there toons.

Kali

ISK invested has nothing to do with the destructive potential of what is brought and does not and has never scaled linearly with cost but rather obeyed something of a principle of diminishing returns.

While I don't agree with the changes, nor is your reasoning about them remotely appropriate.

HotSeat
Black Omega Security
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:08:00 - [97]
 

Sorry but you do not understand the issue in game ATM.

The problem is the number of fighters, and there effect on grid loading.
Your solution will do nothing too stop the problem.

Answer is simple, reduce the numbers of fighters, and give a equal damage bonus.
Let MS have 2x or 3x fighters of a carrier, no issue as there is not that many MS's anyways.

Convert Drone interface into a damage bonus as well, if you don't want anymore then 5 fighters per carrier.



Pallidum Treponema
Body Count Inc.
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:08:00 - [98]
 

Originally by: 0mega
I don't see how this achieves anything but nerfing low-sec motherships.

What's wrong with implementing the various classes of fighters spotted on SiSi over the last couple of months? Have assignable frigate, cruiser and BS-sized drones each optimized for killing their own class. The new drone bandwidth system can then determine how many can then be deployed at once, with frigate-class hitting the current limits (15 carrier / 25 ms) but battleships more limited (say 5 per carrier / 10 per ms). The total dps of say 5 heavier BS-fighters would be more comparable to current carrier dps of 10-15 current fighters.

Alot of the current 'blobbing' of fighters is intended to combat BS and capital-heavy fleets. Now in order for that to reach effective dps, carriers and MSes will need to deploy far small numbers of heavier fighters. Lower numbers of fighters on grid means less grid loading lag, motherships and carriers are still as effective providing additional firepower, and of course there's still a reason to make an MS over a carrier.


THIS.

QFE.

pershphanie
Black Core Federation
Fidelas Constans
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:10:00 - [99]
 

WTF... Did Goonswarm buy CCP?

Ever occur to anyone that maybe a ship that costs 20bill should be able to instapop a ship that costs 60mill? Maybe it's a good thing that a 5man battleship gang can't roast a mothership. At least now it takes a gang of 10 bs/bc's(which personally I think is ******ed as well) And as far as carriers go, well isn't it enough that a 1mill sp player flying a 20k isk maulus can render a 60mill skillpoint carrier pilot completely useless with one sensor dampener?

I have to seriously question the wisdom of nerfing any cap more than it already is. Requiring carrier/ms pilots to bring in even more support with them to use their ships might not be the best of ideas. Lag is bad enough already. Reassigning a fighter in a situation in the middle of a fight where you are facing a 200man blob will be impossible. And it will require a 200man support fleet to field a capital fleet with these changes. IMO it is already absolutely absurd that a mothership/titan can't tank more damage over time than a carrier, but to weaken their damage output too? really?

I'm shocked/disappointed that someone at CCP thought that this is a good enough idea to right a blog about and someone else agreed.

CCP - If you do this can I have my skillpoints back to allocate elsewhere since you are essentially making carriers a completely different ship than the one I spent months training for?

Turkantho
AMT.
Ev0ke
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:10:00 - [100]
 

Edited by: Turkantho on 21/10/2007 12:16:04
Give us back TomB hell even Tux was better...

This is a stupid idea that will kill carriers on the frontlines, they will be back to be POS hugging ships, increase blobs and kill the last usability a mothership has over a carrier is more drones.
Seriously why should I field a motherships that cost about 20x what a carrier costs, not to mention the logistics behind a mothership when it does the same damage a carrier does ???

Xthril Ranger
hirr
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:10:00 - [101]
 

I spent 18 months training for this and they change the role back to pos sitting again. And I really do not like the idea of sitting in a 30 billion ship without the possibility to defend myself anymore.

Guess I'll fit 6 command links and idle at pos.

Mersault
Gallente
The Pie Factory
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:11:00 - [102]
 

>Booo, may aswell sell up the carrier then...

signed

Caiman Graystock
Caldari
Cornelius Starship and Computer Design
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:11:00 - [103]
 

It seems like the caps won't have support fleets then, but supported fleets. Shouldn't the cap be the main offensive vehicle in the fleet, with those around it defending it and such? Nerf its defensive capabilities instead of its offence if you want it to be forced to work as part of a larger fleet, make it need secondary defence.

Lazuran
Gallente
Aliastra
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:12:00 - [104]
 

Edited by: Lazuran on 21/10/2007 12:12:34
Great, let's screw the gameplay up even more for older / more active players (who are more likely to have caps/supercaps) and sell it to our stupid customers as "good gameplay changes" when it's basically yet another way of reducing lag caused by bad programming.

The 10.000s of new players you wish to recruit with shiny screenshots will thank you, I suppose. I won't.


Clone 1
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:13:00 - [105]
 

I predict that Zulupark will have to change his name Razz


No mention of bandwidth, no mention of lag, no mention of low-sec idiots.. Your a star Zulupark


Mining dude
FinFleet
Raiden.
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:15:00 - [106]
 

can i plz get the skille time i ues for carriers back then?

Pattern Clarc
Aperture Harmonics
K162
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:15:00 - [107]
 

Originally by: clone 1
I predict that Zulupark will have to change his name Razz


No mention of bandwidth, no mention of lag, no mention of low-sec idiots.. Your a star Zulupark



LoL
This

Sick Boy
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:16:00 - [108]
 

This is just a plain simple nerf of the carriers and motherships.

To only being able to field 5 drones or fighters (or having the option to field 5+5+5 using assigning)is nothing else but a serius blow to the offensive capabiletys using a carrier. If this is implentend a single bs or hac in hands of a capable pilot can render the carrier useless by either tanking and killing off drones/fighters and holding the carrier in place. it will not be able to kill it i think but the carrier will be useless in frontline duty. And only be a logistics ship with small offensive use.

It has been show sevral times that carriers found alone or just outside a pos or simular is easy target for a small fleet. Motherships are just as vounrable but takes more effort to trap or get shot down.

The whole lag issue is just not valid tbh. From my point of view you will have just as mutch lag as there is or even worse using this idea. Like it is today 1 capital controls 10 drones on the field. Commands and status of drones are sent back and forth between pilot and server. With the new suggestions there will be even more traffic of commands and status between carrier pilot and thoose with drones assigned to them (same as today basiclly but more will be sitting at safe havens with all drones assigned out instead of using them on their own).

Only solution i see to this if you really want to cut down on fighter/drones is to make them more powerfull and better tanking capabiletys so they have the same stats as today just less numbers. Basiclly having 5fighters doing the same dmg as 10-20 fighters and same with drones. This can be done by role bonues assigned to carriers and motherships and of course same with normal drones.

A t2 large drone fielded from a bs should have the same stats as today but 1 fielded from a carrier should do 25% ? more dmg and get a armour shiled bonus of the same % so they get the same dps and hitpoints as 10-15-20 etc...

-just my thoughts

KristeL
The Wings of Maak
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:16:00 - [109]
 

Edited by: KristeL on 21/10/2007 12:16:16
This is how to make a 30 bill ship useless ... Evil or Very Mad. Oh, and more blobs ! Rolling Eyes

Jakiri
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:16:00 - [110]
 

Originally by: 0mega
I don't see how this achieves anything but nerfing low-sec motherships.

What's wrong with implementing the various classes of fighters spotted on SiSi over the last couple of months? Have assignable frigate, cruiser and BS-sized drones each optimized for killing their own class. The new drone bandwidth system can then determine how many can then be deployed at once, with frigate-class hitting the current limits (15 carrier / 25 ms) but battleships more limited (say 5 per carrier / 10 per ms). The total dps of say 5 heavier BS-fighters would be more comparable to current carrier dps of 10-15 current fighters.

Alot of the current 'blobbing' of fighters is intended to combat BS and capital-heavy fleets. Now in order for that to reach effective dps, carriers and MSes will need to deploy far small numbers of heavier fighters. Lower numbers of fighters on grid means less grid loading lag, motherships and carriers are still as effective providing additional firepower, and of course there's still a reason to make an MS over a carrier.


This is very good.

Originally by: pershphanie
WTF... Did Goonswarm buy CCP?


The number of motherships we have suggests otherwise.

CCP Zulu

Posted - 2007.10.21 12:17:00 - [111]
 

Righto then.

So a lot of people missed the point of this blog. The idea we had is: 'Should Carriers and Motherships be more support role oriented then they are now?' Then we thought, what's a way to do that, and came up with this one.

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?

Now to answer a few questions that have arisen in this thread.

Are you an idiot?
No, but thanks for posting constructively

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

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

Why shouldn't a mothership be able to defend itself????
For you real-life analogy aficionados: Do you ever see a aircraft carrier travel anywhere without a blob of smaller support ships? Bad analogy, my mistake, move along, nothing to see.
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?

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?

WrathOfOprah
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:17:00 - [112]
 

Originally by: pershphanie
WTF... Did Goonswarm buy CCP?


We wanted a fix to fighter-lag. Not a nerf to MS/Carriers. As you'll notice, we have MS and Carrier pilots too.

Luigi Galvani
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:19:00 - [113]
 

Edited by: Luigi Galvani on 21/10/2007 12:18:59
Originally by: pershphanie
WTF... Did Goonswarm buy CCP?



Don't be dense, we are strongly disagreeing with this 'fix' aka neuter. Read the thread before posting.

drakenn
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:19:00 - [114]
 

This seems to be a case of over reacting, why I hear the mutterings in your mind? So your going to newt the carrier and mother ship buy taking away its primary weapon drones, are you going to take away control of the guns on a dread or the super weapon on a titan if I or anyone was flying a capital ship I would expect to be able to defend myself if IM all thats left, how will I fight? A titan pilot doesn’t wait for his mate to logon and warp to him so he can use the super weapon.

Daelin Blackleaf
White Rose Society
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:20:00 - [115]
 

Edited by: Daelin Blackleaf on 21/10/2007 12:35:52
A bit over the top isn't it?

A decent gang can take down a carrier with a degree of effort, but it will wtfbbq small gangs... it is a 2billion isk asset your putting out there, it's risk vs reward.

The only problem is in fleets where carriers are becoming too prevalent. Alliances in the thousands are able to field a lot of expensive hardware, and this may force them to have five to ten support ships per carrier. But the problem isn't carriers, it's fleet warfare. Flying a carrier is just about the only way to get any entertainment out of fleet warfare. The rush of laying "fat isk" on the line, the ability to not melt as soon as the enemy FC calls your name, this will not change that. Nerf carriers enough and we'll all be flying dreads and forcing our corpies into inties and frigs to make sure we can still hit stuff. Why? because what capitals really give us is the ability for an individual to effect the outcome of a battle and not just be another drone in the swarm, the ability to live long enough to actually feel you did something meaningful.

Your treating the symptom and not the cause. There are many causes:

Fleet warfare is dull - Two hours prep and travel to die in seconds is not most peoples idea of fun. Players want to feel like they are not just a grunt, not just part of something larger than themselves (which is an important part of the game) they need to feel important, valued, they need to feel they did something beyond being turret 236 of the mighty vessel known as the blob. Currently only Cov-Ops, interdictors, and cap-ships offer that feeling and you only need so many cov-ops and 'dictors in a fleet.

Alliances are too large - I'm sure your loathe to admit it but the game simply can't handle the current size of organizations, they can afford to replace any asset, they can steamroll smaller groups in a few days, they create lag. With the huge resources available to such alliances and the stakes involved it's not surprising it's become capital-ships-online.

Veterans - They're oooold, they've been here a long time, they have a lot of isk and a lot of SP. They want to benefit from it, but the problem is that carriers are still expensive to many a player. Replacing one could take a week or more. So they gravitate towards other groups of veteran players for security in not just numbers, but well equipped and experienced numbers. This leads to there being a few major powers that no new group can compete with, and of course increases the "Alliances are too large" issue. Worse, old characters can be sold on, so the population of high SP players doesn't fall as it would naturally, or shared so that capital and super-capital pilots are available all-hours increasing their presence in space.

Perhaps making non-capital combat more appealing would be a better idea than nerfing the only fun some veterans still get from this game. If flying a t2 or faction BS and other sub-cap ships was a worthwhile and fun investment in todays fleet combat we'd see a lot less less carriers.

[EDIT: If the idea really is to make them support based... they already are by virtue of their value, relatively low damage, and vulnerability. If the idea is to nerf lo-sec motherships, introduce capital-scramblers and/or allow 'dictor bubbles and the new fields to be used in lo-sec. This change serves no purpose but to annoy capital pilots and make them more vulnerable in transit.]

Rodent
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:20:00 - [116]
 

Edited by: Rodent on 21/10/2007 12:20:15
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
Are you doing this to decrease lag
No, this is purely balancing ideas, nothing to do with lag or server load


This is your problem right there. To use a cliche, carriers are fine - learn to play. The only problem with carriers and motherships is the lag they generate.

Reatu Krentor
Minmatar
Void Spiders
Fate Weavers
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:20:00 - [117]
 

Edited by: Reatu Krentor on 21/10/2007 12:23:57
Originally by: Seleene
Originally by: Pallidum Treponema
...


Yep. This kind of change will mean that front line carrier combat will become a thing of the past.

Originally by: Juno II
...


^^ THIS

In addition, the current interface to delegate fighters is woefully difficult to navigate even under the best conditions. Are there any changes planned for this?

So we have lag, ships exploding and everything else a carrier pilot has to contend with and now you wanna add more? In a big fight, a carrier pilot has to monitor the following things:

Look for targets per the Capital FC’s instructions
Keep an eye on your fighters damage to make sure they are not being smartbombed / shot
Ensure that you deploy more fighters when you start to lose them
Monitor your distance to other carriers so you can stay within remote rep range
Watch for other carriers needing remote rep
Relay any tackling frigates / interdictor names to the support fleet

Now let’s add in this new ‘forced’ delegation of fighters:

Find someone at the beginning of the battle to delegate your fighters to (not every support pilot wants to deal with this!)
Somehow monitor if the person you delegated your fighters to is still flying a ship (can’t assign to a pod)
If the person has died, search through the gang to try find someone else in a support ship
Find another support ship that does not already have fighters assigned
Find another support ship that can actually use the fighters properly (a sniping BS at 200k out isn’t much use here)

Let the carriers keep control of their weaponry. Their fighters are their guns and the only long range damage tool they have. All this adds a needless layer of complexity to an already complex element of combat. It also requires even more ships to be on grid than before. Rolling Eyes

Originally by: 0mega
...


^^ Something like this

Most complaints you see on the forums seem to be about the number of fighters causing lag. LAG! Why not just reduce the number of controlable fighters and let some skills apply to them like drones so they get a small boost? I'd trade down from 20 fighters in my mom to 10 if some of the 12 million or so skill points I had in drones was allowed to apply to them. Smile


Pretty much what I'm thinking...

But if you do go through with this, make it so that the carrier pilot's skill applies to the fighters no matter who is controlling them(unless this was changed it doesn't atm).
(+edit) And change triage to still allow for delegation of fighters, still leaves the carrier with 0 own offense but at least the people he is supporting can have BC-grade dps extra.

greywinged
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:21:00 - [118]
 

Edited by: greywinged on 21/10/2007 12:21:43
Current situation in fleet engagements :

Launch drones, wait 5 minutes for them all to appear. Assume you control 12 of them.
Order them to engage your target, 5 minutes later they start fighting.
You carrier is useful after 10 minutes.

With the proposed changes :

Launch your first set of fighters (say 4) : 5 minutes.
Delegate control to a pilot : takes 5 minutes for the command to get through and the 4 drones to dissapear from your 'drones in local space'.
Launch 2nd wave of 4 fighters : another 5 minutes before they appear and you can order them around.
Delegate control to another pilot : 5 minutes.
Launch the final 4 fighters so you can kill something as well (btw - lol at your DPS) : another 5 minutes.
You probably managed to lock something by now if you're lucky so lets put the fighters on them...
After a total of 30 minutes you finally start doing some damage.

The 5 minute number is optimistic, in the last 2 fleet engagements where i took my carrier to the frontlines, i had to wait 20+ in one and in the second the fighters launched some 10 minutes after the fight ended.
I've learned to live with the module activation and command delays in such fights and can deal with it, but this is making things needlessly complicated for carrier pilots. It might work great in small fights where there's minimal lag and you can properly manage your drones, but in big fights this will eventually make me prefer a BS over a carrier so i can atleast do something...

Ofcourse the point is moot as there's no lag in eve, right? Launching them all before the fight and delegating them is not always an option and due to lag you still lose your flexibility during the fight, thats why a carrier is currently better off using the drones himself instead of delegating them.

Ediz Daxx
FinFleet
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:21:00 - [119]
 

Edited by: Ediz Daxx on 21/10/2007 12:22:30
What kind of stupid idea is this? So now all the carrier/moms will do is afk in a pos assigning fighters where as now they can actually take part of the fights since they can field all their fighters at once.
There is absolutly no interest in getting a carrier/mom if these changes stick, people would only buy them becouse theyre glorfied haulers and even thats gonna change with the new freighters with jumpdrive.. so all it really is gonna be i a AFK ship 1m outside POS shields assigning fighters.. what a brilliant idea CCP.

Can i have the time spent on training carriers reimbursed please?

Xune
Body Count Inc.
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:23:00 - [120]
 

Edited by: Xune on 21/10/2007 12:31:31
Actually i don't like this changes at all. Considering.

- The time you have to invest to use them effectively. A lot of those who dedicated them self to Carriers or motherships spent a lot of time getting carrier 5 fighter 5 jdc5 and so on. After the changes we will pretty much " loose" a lot of invested skillpoints if the gang we are in is not able to use up all the resources we could provide. So no more small 2 People gangs with Carrier or mom support. No, more blobing.

- Considering the overall performance of eve is much more likly to loose Fighters if you have to spread them out even more then you do now. More people = more chance of desinc lag, and so on. Causing the fighters to idle or simply be shot down before they can be send back for repairs.

- A lot of people complain about Carriers and Moterships are already to hard to kill. Now they will get impossible to kill, thers no reason to keep them in gride to the battle at all. Simply let them jump between safe spots and take a short break if some one needs to be repped up. There will be no need for spider-tanks or alike. Dreads in siege cant be repped. And there wont be any need for the carriers or moms in gride.

-Remote Ecm burst. While i haven't seen them used much lately i guess this changes, combined with the overall reduction in combat affectivity of Motherships will be used even less.

Titans and doomsday was a kind of crowd control against lots of small targets till they got nerfed. And now we see again that a lot of people complain about carriers. Why ? well its easy to tell isn't it ? They not reached the step where some older but less people are. So they do what they can best, cry for nerf. And we will see more of those cry´s the further the game evolves. As soon as they reach the step we have now, they will think its unfair that there now nerved Carriers and Motherships lose to >insert what ever you want< and cry for a nerv anew. Moterships and Carriers are not broken. Why should we break them now and spin the will of " bring 100 people more then they have and we win" anew ? its already bad enough.


Xune

edit :spelling


Pages: first : previous : 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... : 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