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 : ... 60 61 62 63 [64] 65 66 67 68 ... : last (110)

Author Topic

Bein Glorious
SAKUMA DROP
ANAHEIM ELECTRONICS Alliance
Posted - 2007.10.22 19:37:00 - [1891]
 

Originally by: Perpello
Electronic warfare breaks spider tanks or at least can interrupt it long enough to make a difference. Void bombs might help but the effect is insignificant compared to the effect of electronic warfare.

If triage mode were made usable in combat, well, we'd see less fighters.

To make triage usable, carriers and motherships would still need to be able to receive remote support while in triage mode. It would be fair to make carriers vulnerable to electronic warfare while in triage mode and possibly motherships as well. This would give a chance for the spider tank to be interrupted long enough. Attack frigates would help with this.

Allowing remote support would help to also address inability of capacitor recharge rates to keep up with demand, as energy could be exchanged. Capacitor recharge times could still need to be reduced as well while in triage mode, at least by half perhaps more.

And the range of capital remote repair modules needs increased. This could be either done by increasing the standard range of the modules by double or/and by increasing the range while in triage mode.


Allowing people in triage mode to affect other ships in triage mode would be seriously the most broken thing possible. In triage, logistics modules have 4x the effect but use 2x the cap. What that means is that if you were to link two carriers in triage together with a Capital Energy Transfer Array, you could run a capital shield transporter or remote rep FOREVER. No, it's not doing any damage, but you could make any ship be completely unkillable, or there are other applications, such as repping up a POS out of reinforced mode in only mere minutes. The potential ramifications of daisy-chaining carriers together like that would completely break the game, and ewar immunity would only make that worse. Improving triage mode in that way is completely out of the question.

Similarly, capital logistics modules should NOT have their range increased, since that would make the spider tank problem much worse. Right now, if you've got twenty carriers remote repping each other with the right setups, the only way you're going to break that is by either a) bumping individual carriers apart from the group (which has a tendency to cause desyncs), b) Void bombs (which have limited viability), and c) electronic warfare (which will do NOTHING to any motherships in the group, and damps are very likely to get nerfed soon anyway).

It is, however, true that making the game less laggy, be that by code optimization and/or fighter changes, could mitigate a lot of capital ship related problems. Probably not all of them, but it would be a good start.

Ben Brownson
Posted - 2007.10.22 19:40:00 - [1892]
 

I also have a balancing advice for CCP:

remoce "Zulupark" instantly from the Game Design team
remove "Zulupark" all rights to post stupid Dev blogs
send "Zulupark" to the kitchen and let him make cafe while you search for a new Game Designer.

I would bet this would work much smoother than anything "Zulupark" could do to your memberbase. Btw. the more you pay people, the better you get, so it seems you have to at least triple the income of your game designers.


Commandant Damocles
Posted - 2007.10.22 19:40:00 - [1893]
 

Well the customers are always right, right? DON"T CHANGE THE CARRIERS........ i can't stress this enough people work their butts off getting these death machines and now your going to try to take the rug right out from under them. their great assets for doing solo work and keeping track of significantly weaker corpmates in a system. your trying to ruin something great in eve, you folks have already ruined plenty. Can't yall just quit breaking fixed things?

Miz Cenuij
Caldari
Posted - 2007.10.22 19:45:00 - [1894]
 

64 pages of hate LOL.

Nice first day for you Zulu.

Dont take out a mortgage based on your new job, The response has been enthused with such hate that CCP may take one of thier corporate decisions and fire the person who put the idea out there to apeaze the masses!

Sacrifical lamb to the slaughter?

GJ sunshine.

VInanath Diesel
Caldari
Freedom of Choice
Posted - 2007.10.22 19:46:00 - [1895]
 

Zulupark, That's quite a nerf bat you got there. lol

Asian Doll
The Collective
Against ALL Authorities
Posted - 2007.10.22 19:47:00 - [1896]
 

I have been pointing alot of corp/alliance mates at this thread and the overall response from an entire alliance can be discribed in one word [email protected]#t. Years of training time, tons of isk, many man hours of sitting in front of a pc to even get thess ships built and now someone has a brain fart and the whole community is getting penalized? Everyone aspires to get bigger and better ships but of all those people only a few will actually get it now no one will want a glorified jumping domi. You really need to sit down and rethink these changes cause you are just ****ing the game.


Rusty PwnStar
Centus Inc.
Posted - 2007.10.22 19:49:00 - [1897]
 

Edited by: Rusty PwnStar on 22/10/2007 19:49:21
I'll make this point again, just incase it was lost.

What do you do, if you pilot a MS and you need to login and change a skill?
This change will make it a very risky situation.

Bi Tor
Caldari
State Protectorate
Posted - 2007.10.22 19:49:00 - [1898]
 

Originally by: Akov Stohs
Theres been some significant ideas posted lately. But they lack combining. So instead of nerfing Carriers and Moms, lets change the Triage module.

-increase Cap Recharge while in triage
-increase range of remote reps (maybe via a new skill?) while in triage
-decrease locktime while in triage
-Allow Fighters to be assigned while in triage, but they can't attack
-increase fighter damage while in triage,
-remove local rep bonuses from triage
-ew immunity stays


Gives you the ability to jump in, enter triage with fellow carriers, launch fighters and assign them, and then use the remote reps to keep everyone alive. Keeps carriers as they are now, but gives them a powerful new option that is a pure support role. Gives reason to enter triage, as the fighters can get a bonus to damage, but must be assigned to do any damage.


None of these are my ideas, just a group of other peoples combined *nod*





Add this one;
Give carriers the same Warfare link bonuses as the MOM.

That way your choices are;
1. Full fighters for DPS
2. Triage for support
3. Command link for leadership

Carriers are vulnerable enough, it does not need to get worse. I had to go save two carriers the other day. When we arrived the carriers were about to go down, had no fighters or drones left and had yet to score a kill upon the ships that were attacking them.

SOLO Carrier = a slow but VERY painful death
Proposed change + (SOLO|grouped Carrier) = fast and painless death

Guaranteed, if this goes through I have p**sed away a year of training. For that I will quit this game. Yes I WILL encourage my corpmates and friends to leave also. I believe WAR: Warhammer Age of Reckoning will be released at or about the same time as this CLUSTER F***.

I vote: NO!

The originally proposed idea will kill the carrier faster than any other idea I have ever seen.

Galactic reporter
Galactic reporter independant news corp
Posted - 2007.10.22 19:51:00 - [1899]
 

WHat CCP should do is instead of nerfing them to oblivion:

Make carriers/motherships unable to control FIGHTERS in low sec.

Talthrus
EdgeGamers
Situation: Normal
Posted - 2007.10.22 19:52:00 - [1900]
 

This "idea" would have been something to consider before releasing carriers. Here we are, what, a year plus after capital ships have been released? People have thrown in month after month of long training times (Carrier 5 / Fighter 5 anyone?) in addition to enormous sums of ISK into their capital ships.

As I said earlier, this is the kind of thing that needs to be introduced before or right after the ships are released. You simply can't expect players to stomach their ships being gutted like this after so much time has passed. I definitely know I'm not alone when I say that I wouldn't have trained carriers to the point I have today (let alone Carrier 5) if this is how they worked.

Xilimyth Derlin
Federal Fleet System
Posted - 2007.10.22 19:53:00 - [1901]
 

Originally by: Rusty PwnStar
Edited by: Rusty PwnStar on 22/10/2007 19:49:21
I'll make this point again, just incase it was lost.

What do you do, if you pilot a MS and you need to login and change a skill?
This change will make it a very risky situation.


I'm still thinking they should allow MS's to dock. Heck, this is the ONE reason once my skillups are done I'm not even going to try to fly one. If you want to do something else for a day, you can't even swap 'ownership' or put it away without ejecting -_-.

Nottingham Lace
Gallente
Sane Industries Inc.
Ethereal Dawn
Posted - 2007.10.22 19:57:00 - [1902]
 

Deacon Ix, i hope its ok if i loan your sig Embarassed


Yazoul Samaiel
Caldari
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2007.10.22 19:57:00 - [1903]
 

It is quite clear that 95% of the community that actualy is involved with cap ship usage is total frustrated and agisnt this idea and direction CCP is taking .

the most important question is what are you ppl gonna do if CCP as usual just goes with " Sorry we will implement what we want " and all this chatter that we have been doign here has fallen on deaf ears? As far as i know when a customer is dissatisfied with the service the company obligation is to work on that not to work on dissatisfing the customer more so again what will the community do ? Continue to play EVE or not ?


Neoromi
Posted - 2007.10.22 19:57:00 - [1904]
 

Originally by: Rachen Mysuna
Deacon Ix, i hope its ok if i loan your sig Embarassed




Most of us already stole it for the greater good.

Divideby0
Gallente
Destry's Lounge
Important Internet Spaceship League
Posted - 2007.10.22 19:57:00 - [1905]
 

Ok I skipped a lot of this but i get the gist:

CCP wanted to moderate the power of carriers, asked for an opinion and everyone said "NO"!

So rather than nerf an existing ship, why not create a counter-ship. Make it like a capital scale or a BS/BC variant of a destroyer(not dictor) that specializes in taking out MANY smaller ships.

Stellar Vix
State War Academy
Posted - 2007.10.22 20:00:00 - [1906]
 

How to make carriers front line again.

Keep your nerf,

Add to your nerf that any ship you give fighters to get some sort of bonus from the fighter for example amarr fighters give 1% cap recharge, caldari give 1% shield recharge ect ect.

Give all the carriers one sort of fighter buff or another make it racial for example, amarr fighters hp boost, minmatar fighters speed boost, caldari fighters, higher accuracy (better for the smaller than battleship stuff), gallente better damage not just to the gallente as it is now.

Give them resistances to EWAR, but not immunity, and boost the effectiveness of boosters on them, so that one sensor booster could take up to 8 dampeners to coutner, and remote sensor boosters would be the same. This however has the potential to backfire in bigger ner***es.

If this wont do then I purpose this
All fighters have a long range remote sensor boost to thier controlling ship, in a real carrier its the fighters and recon planes that offer information to the fleets it should be applied here.

Give carriers on grid fleet bonuses similar to titans fleet wide anywhere in system bonuses but only have them on in their presence.

Remove remote delegation of fighters
Remove fighter warp drives
Introduce more types of Carrier Sized Drones!!!
Add Fighters with Ewar or multiple ewars including warp scrambeling and will still do dps but not as good as the of the fighter

Another option is to make fighters fittable, giving ultimate variety and role function slots would be limited to basically, what ewar you want, what ranged gun you want and what type of support module on the low slot you want.

New weapon for carrier in triage mode a repair field generator, fixes ships in range of the field thier cap shield armor hull and modules and any drones they have docked including carrier itself, amount of repair is based on radius of the ship but it will repair any hostile ships in the field as well. The repairs wouldnt be to terribly high and the range of the field would make it difficult to overlap the fields let alone fit another carrier in it.

Give Triage mode an engineering boost, if the ship is offlining its engine then there should be a metrictonn of new power to pull. Make the engineering good enough so that the carrier can run its own repper the formentioned field and 1 remote at least.

Give carriers a carrier bay which holds piloted ships so when they jump they take the pilots with them. Ships docked up with them will get repaired by a carriers repair bay module this includes thier cap shields armor hull modules and drones, ships docked on the carrier will not be targetable by hostile forces but will be destroyed if the carrier goes down. If a player disconnects while in this mode he'll be undocked and normal emergency warp procedures ensure. you can limit ship sizes by individual bay size stats and then the number of bays so if a bay was 10km3 then you can fit two frigates there or 1 cruiser then 4 bays opt for 8 frigates or 4 cruisers.

Give carriers 1 uber defender, phalanx, that will intercept incomming missiles and attempt deflect incomming rounds and shoot down drones, it wont make them invincible but it will increase their survivbility against smaller ships, dread weapons will still punch though, also the system should require ammo so it would have to be reloaded leaving the carrier vunerable for some time before firing up the system again.

There you have it folks,
a more real carrier
more fighter encouragement for deligation
a more resiliant carrier
a more front line carrier
a more useful triage mode
and something that still isnt uber enough but will be very very useful and a critical staple.

Salient Soldier
Minmatar
The Hull Miners Union
Posted - 2007.10.22 20:00:00 - [1907]
 

booooo!!!
Hisss!!!!

Bein Glorious
SAKUMA DROP
ANAHEIM ELECTRONICS Alliance
Posted - 2007.10.22 20:01:00 - [1908]
 

As a side note, I am really amazed at the amount of e-rage in this thread.

Serious question for all of you, not a troll or a flame or anything, but really just a question: was EVE not fun before carriers became common? Was it really terrible and not worth playing before you had a carrier?

This change doesn't really toss carriers/motherships out, it's just meant to make it so there's less of them. Sure, the idea could use a little modification, and the UI and lag problems still need to be taken care of, but right now it's still just an idea.

In an absolute worst-case, end-of-the-world, "twister's-a-comin!" scenario where carriers were something besides what they are now, something that you wouldn't want to fly exclusively, would the game really just not be worth playing?

I really can't help but think that some people are overdramatizing this.

Xilimyth Derlin
Federal Fleet System
Posted - 2007.10.22 20:02:00 - [1909]
 

Edited by: Xilimyth Derlin on 22/10/2007 20:02:59
Originally by: Stellar Vix
How to make carriers front line again.

Keep your nerf,

Add to your nerf that any ship you give fighters to get some sort of bonus from the fighter for example amarr fighters give 1% cap recharge, caldari give 1% shield recharge ect ect.

Give all the carriers one sort of fighter buff or another make it racial for example, amarr fighters hp boost, minmatar fighters speed boost, caldari fighters, higher accuracy (better for the smaller than battleship stuff), gallente better damage not just to the gallente as it is now.

Give them resistances to EWAR, but not immunity, and boost the effectiveness of boosters on them, so that one sensor booster could take up to 8 dampeners to coutner, and remote sensor boosters would be the same. This however has the potential to backfire in bigger ner***es.



Fighters being part logistic drones? That kinda makes sense... I mean they are cruiser sized are they not? What harm would it cause if attaching 5 fighters to another ship gave it a 5% armor repair or resistance.... or target painted the target a little?

Surely that won't harm things right CCP? ^^ Make them 100% worth Delegating instead of controlling yourself.

General Xenophon
Posted - 2007.10.22 20:03:00 - [1910]
 

Edited by: General Xenophon on 22/10/2007 20:03:35
Originally by: CCP Wrangler
Making changes to EVE can be an easy or a difficult task, and a change that one person likes might not be palatable to someone else. However, these changes are made with the overall game in mind.

Zulupark makes his introductory Dev Blog from his new position in the Game Design team. Following in the footsteps of TomB and Tuxford, Zulu is now working on balancing different elements of EVE and one of the first projects he gets to work on is the relationship between Supercapitals, Fighters and Drones. Be gentle on him, he's got a tough one!

Fighters, Drones, Supercapitals and control. What's being considered? Check out Capital ships in EVE, what's up doc?.


Absolutely not. Terrible idea. No thanks. For your sake and mine, I won't spend the next few lines writing how terrible this idea is and how it makes me feel about CCP for coming up with it. As to the Dev's post, well, better luck next time with an idea. Don't give up on your first attempt at coming up with an idea.

Taip
Rionnag Alba
Against ALL Authorities
Posted - 2007.10.22 20:03:00 - [1911]
 

Originally by: Yazoul Samaiel
It is quite clear that 95% of the community that actualy is involved with cap ship usage is total frustrated and agisnt this idea and direction CCP is taking .

the most important question is what are you ppl gonna do if CCP as usual just goes with " Sorry we will implement what we want " and all this chatter that we have been doign here has fallen on deaf ears? As far as i know when a customer is dissatisfied with the service the company obligation is to work on that not to work on dissatisfing the customer more so again what will the community do ? Continue to play EVE or not ?


I fear that the majority opinion will be disregarded anyway and there's nothing we can really do about it. Sure, some people will quit, but enough to impact CCP's income? I seriously doubt it.

I for one, won't quit. I may go on a break and do other things for several months but as before, I'll probably just get over it and return. Until there's another viable alternative to EvE, we have little choice.

Mifter Hogdido
Amarr
Dark-Rising
IT Alliance
Posted - 2007.10.22 20:04:00 - [1912]
 

Originally by: Ben Brownson
I also have a balancing advice for CCP:

remoce "Zulupark" instantly from the Game Design team
remove "Zulupark" all rights to post stupid Dev blogs
send "Zulupark" to the kitchen and let him make cafe while you search for a new Game Designer.

I would bet this would work much smoother than anything "Zulupark" could do to your memberbase. Btw. the more you pay people, the better you get, so it seems you have to at least triple the income of your game designers.




Hear hear! Very Happy I like that balancing idea.

Ztrain
Versatech Co.
Blade.
Posted - 2007.10.22 20:07:00 - [1913]
 

Originally by: Vandalias
Edited by: Vandalias on 22/10/2007 19:24:52
Originally by: Kariss
I seriously hope that if this goes through, your subscriber base drops like a lead weight. It'll certainly alleviate some lag at least.


I'd guess that even if every carrier pilot in game were to quit next week the numbers on tranq wouldn't drop that much. Everytime theres a big change the forums are full of people screaming about canceling accounts, yet the playerbase keeps growing and CCP survives.

Yes because this is the only space MMO currently released. So if your not in to the other styles of games your kinda left with EVE as your only option for probably the next year. But as people get more and more anoyed with CCP you'll start to see an interesting effect. When the other games such as Infinity and Jumpgate Evolution come out people will play them just because their not CCP.

Personally play'd EQ for a number of years and won't have a problem going back and messing around with raid geared characters until the other MMOs are released.

Z

Rusty PwnStar
Centus Inc.
Posted - 2007.10.22 20:08:00 - [1914]
 

I and I guess many others in this thread, would still like to know the reason this balance was needed in the first place.

You ask for constructive replies, yet fail to give constructive reasons.

thetwilitehour
Cutting Edge Incorporated
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2007.10.22 20:09:00 - [1915]
 

It sounds like the issue is primarily fighter blobs so to speak. Why not simply utilize the new bandwidth attribute. Set it up so every carrier in the gang or grid reduces the bandwidth for every carrier to deploy fighters.

So Carriers would have 5 Fighter bandwidth, MS 5 + per level of carrier, and their bandwidth would be reduced by 1 per carrier/ms on the grid or in the gang. Maybe this wouldn't work (setting up multiple gangs, no way to detect carriers on the grid) but at least it seems like a more productive idea than wanting to kill the messenger.

Dionisius
Gallente
the muppets
RED.OverLord
Posted - 2007.10.22 20:10:00 - [1916]
 

Originally by: Bein Glorious
As a side note, I am really amazed at the amount of e-rage in this thread.

Serious question for all of you, not a troll or a flame or anything, but really just a question: was EVE not fun before carriers became common? Was it really terrible and not worth playing before you had a carrier?

This change doesn't really toss carriers/motherships out, it's just meant to make it so there's less of them. Sure, the idea could use a little modification, and the UI and lag problems still need to be taken care of, but right now it's still just an idea.

In an absolute worst-case, end-of-the-world, "twister's-a-comin!" scenario where carriers were something besides what they are now, something that you wouldn't want to fly exclusively, would the game really just not be worth playing?

I really can't help but think that some people are overdramatizing this.


Bein it takes 1 year or more for training, 1bilion in skillbooks, 1 bilion in the ship itself and at least another bilion for proper fitting.

The carrier as it is can be downed easely either in lowsec or in 0.0, not to mention the almost impossibility of assigning fighters in between all the lag of large fleet engagements.

Now LAG and the UI problems aren't nowhere near of being fixed and nerfing the carriers this way is not fixing anything, its just going to frustrate the people that are training for them, have trained for them, have invested alot of time and isk in them.

Its a capital ship that executes many roles as it is atm and should be able to field its own defence, in this case in the form of fighters and/or drones, fielding 5 tops its like eerrrm i even lack the description for it but its no longer a carrier, its a logistics ships, a very expensive and useless one.

On top of that you will have heavy dictors introduced to the game wich will add to the dangers of travelling trough 0.0 with a carrier or MoM in 0.0 space.

Again, don't nerf carriers CCP.Neutral

Vito Parabellum
Fivrelde Corp
Posted - 2007.10.22 20:10:00 - [1917]
 

Stupid nerf. I can't be arsed typing anything else that will be drowned out by the rabble, but this is one huge mistake.

Mataki Onimareu
BURN EDEN
Posted - 2007.10.22 20:13:00 - [1918]
 

Edited by: Mataki Onimareu on 22/10/2007 20:13:46
CCP where did you find this guy?!?!?!?!?!

A note to all the noobs that are for this: S-T-F-U

You're in your nice little no-support skill having BS and you die to a carrier and you whine like a 6 y/o. Well look, I'm sorry you have only been playing for 3 months and you can't kill a ship that took years to build and train for.

Grow the F up you morons. I'm so tired of crap getting nerfed because noobs can't wtfbbq a titan on their 2nd day of playing.

jokerb
Windowlickers Inc
Wrath.
Posted - 2007.10.22 20:14:00 - [1919]
 

Originally by: Bein Glorious
As a side note, I am really amazed at the amount of e-rage in this thread.

Serious question for all of you, not a troll or a flame or anything, but really just a question: was EVE not fun before carriers became common? Was it really terrible and not worth playing before you had a carrier?

This change doesn't really toss carriers/motherships out, it's just meant to make it so there's less of them. Sure, the idea could use a little modification, and the UI and lag problems still need to be taken care of, but right now it's still just an idea.

In an absolute worst-case, end-of-the-world, "twister's-a-comin!" scenario where carriers were something besides what they are now, something that you wouldn't want to fly exclusively, would the game really just not be worth playing?

I really can't help but think that some people are overdramatizing this.


You are probably right to an extent. I do think the rage comes from months of being taken into direction A. time and time again and then only to have Direction Z (where we were originally) shoved back down our throats only after months and months of planning, time and money investment into the ship class. I also believe the time and money sinks are the root of the rage. Eve's attraction to many is the involvement that comes with attaining anything of any stature within the game, is also at work in a negative way for CCP right now. The reaction is customer demonstrating their disapproval of a potential change in a product. I do think that the forums/internet allows for a coalescence of like minded people expressing themselves versus say a traditional brick and mortar company doing something similar to this. Is it right/wrong, warranted/justified, e-rage/e-peen waving? I don't know, I do know however that there are many upset customers here voicing their collective NO's.

It is time however for CCP to 'officially' respond and let us know when/if this 'idea' is being implemented. A simple Yes or No is called for here, with explanations of course.

Kwint Sommer
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2007.10.22 20:19:00 - [1920]
 

It's been roughly 20 pages so I'll reiterate:

Issue #1 - Taking the time to assign, re-assign, assing, re-assign, assign, re-assign fighters in a lagged out system (which we find even in empire with only TWENTY PILOTS in-system at the time) is going to increase frustration on the part of the carrier pilots several fold. This is a game. It's supposed to be fun. I can't see anything remotely fun about solely paying attention to who is calling for fighters at any given moment. Paying attention to that, AND who needs repping, AND what the primary/secondary targets are, AND if you're being locked/targetted/scrammed/etc... is a lot to deal with. So, to boil Issue #1 down - you are increasing frustration levels without truly affecting any other change. You're going to force carriers into larger and larger gangs, simply so that there are equitable numbers of pilots to support the number of fighters that can be deployed, thus increasing lag, thus magnifying the frustration level as the fighters you assigned 7 minutes ago still haven't responded because EVE is operating at slideshow speeds. Or, when operating in a small-gang format, you are at times not realizing the carrier's full potential due to a lack of supporting ships.

Issue #2 - You're taking a billion isk ship, in the case of a carrier, and saying that if it is caught alone by a Dominix (a 60M isk ship), that you want it to be a somewhat even fight. A carrier with 5 fighters (assuming Fighters IV, Carrier IV) does roughly 540 DPS, while being able to tank a hell of a lot. A dominix with 5 Ogre II's (assuming Gallente Drone Spec IV and Heavy Drones V) does 467 damage, while being able to tank well for a battleship. What you are saying is that this fight should be a draw. 5 fighters will not be able to break a Dominix's tank, if it is setup even remotely correctly. 5 Ogre II's will obviously face a similar situation as the fighters. Do you see the problem here? A 60 million isk specialized drone ship is able to perform the exact functions as a 1 billion isk specialized drone ship, if said 1 billion isk specialized drone ship is caught alone for whatever reason.


If you want a workable system that forces a carrier to always have a support fleet then make it such that all drones in a squad/wing/fleet are controlled by the squad/wing/fleet commander and that only 5 per ship may be active at a time but that they can come from any ship in the squad/wing/fleet. This lets a carrier launch massive squadrons of drones as it should be able to and these drones/fighters can be easily and centrally controlled by a single person. It makes carriers even more useful on the front lines in large mixed fleets, it makes them more like real carriers, it makes drone control easier, it makes drone swarms a more affective weapon when attacking BS's and it makes carriers almost useless when they're not accompanied by a support fleet. Thus carrier pilots will be happy and CCP's fears of carrier blobs and solopwning carriers will be addressed.


Pages: first : previous : ... 60 61 62 63 [64] 65 66 67 68 ... : 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