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

Inturist
FSB-ALFA
RED.OverLord
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:23:00 - [121]
 

Bring back TomB Evil or Very Mad

WrathOfOprah
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:23:00 - [122]
 

Originally by: Rodent
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.


This. Ans I think most people will agree.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:23:00 - [123]
 


In LARGE battles, it renders ATTACKING force carriers ALMOST COMPLETELY useless, due to lag... and DEFENDING ones slightly less effective due to occasional dropouts.
In smaller-sized battles, it adds a big hassle of bothering to reassign fighters.
In solo battles (or carrier-only/mostly gangs), it nerfs carrier firepower hugely.
You fix one issue of the situation (solo pwnmobile or mostly-carrier strike teams), while adding a lot of unnecessary hassle.

If you REALLY want to do this, start thinking of ways to remove the "fighter delegation" mechanism altogether, and replacing it with a "fleet commander fighter control" tactical screen or somesuch, where the NUMBER of fighters in space alloocated to "fleet command" is linked to the fleet size in the current battle, and fighters are EITHER completely autonomous OR the fleet commander can see every local grid locked target and assign up to 5 fighters per target lock on that target.

ArmyOfMe
Hysera.
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:24:00 - [124]
 

1. Do you like this idea (that is the more-support-oriented idea)?
Carriers are already used as support ships in fleetbattles, the fighters just actually give us a chance to do more then just rep other ppl.

2. If so, do you like the approach we're thinking about (fighter deployment limits)?
No, i dont like it at all. it will make carriers sit at pos during the whole fight.
3. If you liked the idea but no the solution, what propositions do you have?
I already think carriers are fine as they are. However i wouldnt mind if you made moms not able to enter low sec
4. If you don't like the idea at all, why not?
It makes carriers close to useless

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?
You should have a look at killboards and see how many carriers get trapped when cynoing outside some pos or tries to undock and gets bumped. These changes will make the carrier defenceless against stuff like this

Mr Funkadelic
x13
Raiden.
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:25:00 - [125]
 

This gota be the worst change ever made by ccp - Zulupark is defently my least favorite person right about now

MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:25:00 - [126]
 

stop ignore the fact that fighter create client side lag. they are nothing but big drones.

now wait for the new engine to come out and use a fighter again.

if there is no imporvment in the classic eve with the new code then you say all you want.

but these change would not be coming out before this.

Dalekplunger Slick
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:26:00 - [127]
 

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



Well then change my vote to a "No". Fix the lag. Fix the server load. We can talk about redecorating the house once the fire is put out.

Lazuran
Gallente
Aliastra
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:26:00 - [128]
 

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?



It's a bad idea and the real-life analogy doesn't work, because you will simply force mothership-owning players to have 4 more "support" accounts running (for solo work, in addition to the emergency cyno char) all the time so they can attack stuff.

It will make no difference to their ability to insta-fry battleships, it will just be a lot more tedious for them.

And by the way, in real life we never see any kinds of military ships going to a fight solo, except a submarine with nuclear warheads perhaps. It's not a good analogy for EVE, where you don't have to join an Alliance to play or to fight.

Carriers and motherships are fine, just fix the bloody lag, please.


Treelox
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:27:00 - [129]
 

Originally by: CCP Zulupark
For you real-life analogy aficionados: Do you ever see a aircraft carrier travel anywhere without a blob of smaller support ships?



Now adays a handful of support ships, but none of them have anything to do with the Carriers offensive abillities.

MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:28:00 - [130]
 

Originally by: Inturist
Bring back TomB Evil or Very Mad


and lose the interceptor change?
no way!

Serenity2005
Gallente
Lyonesse.
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:28:00 - [131]
 

Your nuts.....

Kelmantis
The Greater Goon
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:28:00 - [132]
 

I fail to see how this will change the lag problems with fighter drones etc. It is all well and good allowing them to be assigned it is just the fact it will take around 5 minutes for the assignment, then 5 minutes for the person who has them assigned to lock and then 5 minutes for them to attack which is the problem.

Fix the lag, then work on balancing.

Jakiri
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:28:00 - [133]
 

Edited by: Jakiri on 21/10/2007 12:30:48
Originally by: CCP Zulupark

1. Do you like this idea (that is the more-support-oriented idea)?


Not particularly, as it leaves carriers (and to a much greater extent motherships) without much of a role in combat. The only time large remote repping battleship gangs with carrier support has really been useful has been taking down a fully armed pos, and you only need to do THAT if the cynojammer is up, meaning you can't be assured of carrier support.

Originally by: CCP Zulupark
2. If so, do you like the approach we're thinking about (fighter deployment limits)?


Not particularly, individual carriers (and to an extent motherships) are already extremely vulnerable to attack without the change. One of our small roaming gangs managed to take an ISS carrier out at an online, fully gunned, large PoS. Dramatically lowering the ability of carriers, and to a far greater extent motherships, to defend themselves turns this from a small weakness into a critical one.
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
Now to answer a few questions that have arisen in this thread.

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


I like the way that you go out of your way to reply to something like this, but don't reply to people who ARE posting constructively. You're not giving any incentive to give suggestions here, and not supplying any sign that CCP actually listen. It may well be the case that you are, but proving one way or the other helps to calm people down enormously. Don't be like your pet economist.

Originally by: CCP Zulupark
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?
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?


That analogy doesn't work, as the similarities between aircraft carriers and carriers are fairly limited in scope (not even considering motherships). In addition, that's where they are now, excluding lowsec motherships, which are a different issue entirely.

Originally by: CCP Zulupark
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?


The fact that they can control more drones? I dunno.

If you made a battleship a fast frigate sized ship with sig radius bonuses, there wouldn't be any difference between them and interceptors aside from the cost.

If this change nullifies the difference between battleships and interceptors, what's the difference today???

Arana Tellen
Gallente
Clan Death Corps
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:28:00 - [134]
 

Originally by: CCP Zulupark
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?
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?


Have you considered the assault ship to have a fighter control role? Give them a damage bonus to fighters or similar under their control. This would be for the ishkur and one assault ship in each race.

Cruel Fox
Divine Power.
Atlas.
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:29:00 - [135]
 

WTS MS cheap and CCP move mine skilz out of MS specialized area on both mine amar chars!!!

I have been training for something wich u r now taking away. NP. Move mine SP as well then. And if MS does not sell give me place to reproces it or place to insure and blow it up for a good fee.

Tetsujin
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:30:00 - [136]
 

Originally by: CCP Zulupark
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?
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?


Oh man a real-life analogy who doesn't love those. Hey thanks for this, now would you mind putting the person in charge of reducing the amount of lag fighters create on the line?

Kappas.
Galaxy Punks
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:30:00 - [137]
 

Originally by: CCP Zulupark
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?



They never missed the point of the blog. You have your feedback on every point you asked there. (Majority answers below)

1. No
2. No
3. N/a
4. Lots of skill time/isk invested in making carriers/motherships useful for front line combat, this nullifys them having to be at the front line when they can delegate fighters at a POS and people can warp back and forth for repairs.



Sirmonkey
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:32:00 - [138]
 

Quite possibly the worst idea i have ever seen.

Make a ship more of a POS jockey? Unable to put out more than a Dominixes DPS if caught alone?

Wake up CCP, you've crossed the line this time.

Pallidum Treponema
Body Count Inc.
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:33:00 - [139]
 

Originally by: CCP Zulupark

1. Do you like this idea (that is the more-support-oriented idea)?



No. Carriers and motherships are supposed to project power. A carrier battlegroup, in eve or otherwise, is supposed to be a tool of offensive warfare. Facing a carrier should give you the "Oh, no! He can kill us" thought rather than "oh no, he can remote rep his friends".


Originally by: CCP Zulupark

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?
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?



Aircraft carriers of today travel with a group of ships to defend against various threats, not to delegate firepower to. An aircraft carrier traveling alone would still be able to launch all its aircraft even if it didn't have frigate or destroyer escorts.

To answer your other question, because sometimes things don't go as planned. Unless you make it so that capitals will be able to bring their support fleets along with them, they will still need to travel alone. On more than one occasion, we have lost and killed capitals that were traveling. Similarily, on more than one occasion, we have had carriers survive because they were able to defend themselves by means of launching drones.

Also, no, the last line of defense has often not been fighters, but rather light drones, and more specifically the ability to launch a large number of said drones before they can be killed off.

GO MaZ
The Illuminati.
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:33:00 - [140]
 

Edited by: GO MaZ on 21/10/2007 12:38:58
Originally by: Rodent

The only problem with carriers and motherships is the lag they generate.


Agreeing with this. The original idea in the devblog would end up with carriers back inside / creeping outside the POS shields before the change so fighters couldn't be delegated from inside a POS forcefield. How boring was that, having your entire capital fleet sat AFK at a POS getting kills while your support do all the work.

If you want to make capitals more teamwork oriented, don't do it by nerfing their individual damage output (and believe it, having to delegate fighters in a laggy battle is going to suck).

We already need alts / gang members to move capitals, making a change like this just means I run 3 accounts instead of 1, sit my carrier at a safespot / POS and use the other two for killing stuff. Note the 2 extra gang members for 1 person, I can't see that doing anything for the lag at all Laughing
I think the best way to do this would be to nerf fighters' sig resolution so they hit anything below a battleship for severely (SEVERELY) reduced damage, say 10% of total dps output, meaning carriers / moms have to rely on gang members / smartbombs to kill tackling ships, or switch to drones (and get stuck with the 45km drone control range).

Oh also, increase fighter HP and damage and reduce fighter count to max 5 for carrier, 10 for mothership with drone control units giving a damage bonus equal to 1 fighter rather than spawning more Wink

Kaakao
Insidious Existence
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:33:00 - [141]
 

With only reading the devblog (not the 5 page thread) this sound like a nerf that I really dont want to see.

Arthin Mutin
Pulsar Combat Supplies
Alternative Realities
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:35:00 - [142]
 

I do not like this idea because.

1. I think carriers should be very offensive with some support capabilities or the option to go full support role (triage module anyone?)
2. Alot of carrier pilots spend alot of money on there carriers and i for one would not trust 100m of fighters to an alliance member i hardly knew.
3. Completely Wrecks capital fights for those Jumping in, For example

Force A has 20 carriers on a gate with 100 support
Force B will jump into them with 20 carriers and 100 support,
Force A will have all fighters assigned so they are ready to fight
Force B will Jump in Cyno into the fight but due to lag and many other issues not be able to fully give out there fighters causing them to have a severe disadvantage.

This alone could potential break the game, it would cause capital gate camps to be unkillable, Who would jump caps into that situation you would lose the fight for sure,

Elliott Manchild
Animosity.
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:35:00 - [143]
 

Reason I have a MS is because I can use it on the frontlines and is alot better than a carrier. Your just making it so that carriers/ms wont even warp in. A few weeks/months ago you was going to stop fightings being assigned from POS. Now you gone totaly diffenret way and made carriers/moms useless in frontlines.

Ediz Daxx
FinFleet
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:35:00 - [144]
 

Edited by: Ediz Daxx on 21/10/2007 12:35:57
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
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?



1. No
2. No
3. No
4. Becouse it nullyfies any reason to train and fly a carrier/mom other than being a hauler. We already got specialized logistics ships that has the role of a support ship, add a capital/bs class of them to the game but dont screw over carrier/mom

Arana Tellen
Gallente
Clan Death Corps
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:36:00 - [145]
 

Originally by: Pallidum Treponema
Originally by: CCP Zulupark

1. Do you like this idea (that is the more-support-oriented idea)?



No. Carriers and motherships are supposed to project power. A carrier battlegroup, in eve or otherwise, is supposed to be a tool of offensive warfare. Facing a carrier should give you the "Oh, no! He can kill us" thought rather than "oh no, he can remote rep his friends".


Originally by: CCP Zulupark

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?
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?



Aircraft carriers of today travel with a group of ships to defend against various threats, not to delegate firepower to. An aircraft carrier traveling alone would still be able to launch all its aircraft even if it didn't have frigate or destroyer escorts.

To answer your other question, because sometimes things don't go as planned. Unless you make it so that capitals will be able to bring their support fleets along with them, they will still need to travel alone. On more than one occasion, we have lost and killed capitals that were traveling. Similarily, on more than one occasion, we have had carriers survive because they were able to defend themselves by means of launching drones.

Also, no, the last line of defense has often not been fighters, but rather light drones, and more specifically the ability to launch a large number of said drones before they can be killed off.


A carrier caught alone is promptly torpedoed by a sub Razz

Darknesss
V0LTA
VOLTA Corp
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:37:00 - [146]
 

Edited by: Darknesss on 21/10/2007 12:38:56
I've got one thing to say:

CCP what the hell are you thinking? Your turning Carriers and Motherships into boring POS sitting useless ships. Why bother fielding a capital fleet on a gate when the capitals can only use 5 fighters. A Moros would be far more useful on the battlefield. This makes a mothership near pointless, because your not gonna bother going in close so why not just use a carrier.

I've never heard such a terrible idea before and i am 100% against it. You are yet again pushing eve into a numbers game, your making it so every carrier requires 3 people to support it, and you will SERIOUSLY reduce the ammount of capitals killed which will even effect the market. Carriers and Motherships are SUPPOSED to be totalhelldeath front line ships. You dont invest large quantities of cash on a ship you wont be able to use properly. Now your making it so a Battleship can tank a carrier/mothership...

wow this really is a great idea, sorry at the sarcasm but this is unbelievable.

Steve Dave
Reikoku
Band of Brothers
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:38:00 - [147]
 

every other single class of ship in the game has the ability to focus its offensive weaponry on a target on its own choosing, in either its own defence, or to attack another player.

what is so different about carriers and motherships that they should not be able to do this?

all this leads to is an increased number of pilots in system, which in turn translates to increased load on the server, more lag, and more whining at CCP about the lag.

this is a bad idea

THCS
Naughty 40
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:39:00 - [148]
 

This is ******ed what about all the people who have trained fighters to level 5 and advanced drone interfacing?

I know I only have fighters level 5 because it adds to my fighter damage when assigned to me and I can have 13-15 fighters out doing 100% more damage if i am attacked..with this change I can have 5 out to defend myself!! so 3 million skill points for 5 drones to do 100% more damage!

Now interfacing 5 omg whats the point the skill just got nerfed and is now useless, allows 1 drone interfacing unit per level but the carrier can deploy 5 drones anyway, why would you ever use this skill unless your sitting at a pos assigning fighters to others.another 3 million sp down the drain :(

so after paying out 1 billion+ for carrier and 1 billion+ for all the skills and training for 8 months your nerfing the carrier into a glorified dominix..without anyway to defend itself. Thanks alot.


Jakiri
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:39:00 - [149]
 

I'm sorry to post again on the same topic, but that "If we changed a cat to be a dog, what would be the difference between cats and dogs now? None, I say!" argument is going to stick with me forever.

Elmicker
Wreckless Abandon
Posted - 2007.10.21 12:41:00 - [150]
 

Ok, you wanted a constructive response - you're getting one.

WHAT THE **** ARE YOU THINKING?! ARE YOU ON CRACK?! THIS IS WORSE THAN THE SODDING MINERAL COMPRESSION NERF!!!!

Fighter delegation is all well and good in theory, and is actually something i quite like as it nerfs lowsec solo moms. However, in a real fleet situation, this is impossible. Lag is the prime factor in this. Navigating gang menus and spamming up gang communication channels for fighter requests contribute too. It just isn't viable.

As for the drone limitations? I refer you to my above bolded comments. This makes carriers utterly USELESS. Like, why the **** would you bring a carrier to a frontline situation? Carriers and motherships are now dominixes. Nothing more.

In fact, here's a snipped from a carrier and a mothership pilot upon hearing about the change:

Quote:
(@El-Diablito) I've wasted months of training
@El-Diablito) for a ship I now have NO desire to fly
(@El-Diablito) mother****ing *******s
(@El-Diablito) five drones
(@El-Diablito) i'll have less dps than a megathron

Quote:
(13:32:19) (@Rodent) El-Diablito cry more ****er, I have 60b invested in a ****ing dominix :|


Your entire logic in this is flawed; you spend MONTHS moving carriers away from POS-hugging fighter spammers, trying to edge them more towards frontline logistical support and now you nerf EVERYTHING about them. They're now ridiculously vulnerable to interdictors, and have absolutely no effective offensive capability.

Now: Here's the key thing. You have just made the only statement that has EVER united both sides of this war. Everyone is ****ed, and everyone WILL despise whichever asshat came up with this change if it comes onto TQ. Have a tip, free from me, abandon it now. Say you had technical difficulties or something, like you did with the cloaking change (which is coming when, btw?). Or better yet, just remove the eejit of a dev who came up with this back to whichever cupboard he came from. Lord knows what he'd try next.


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