open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New Dev Blog, Nozh on Carriers Redux, Part II
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (38)

Author Topic

CCP kieron

Posted - 2007.10.24 00:51:00 - [1]
 

It is obvious that the last Dev Blog concerning some proposed changes to Carriers was the equivalent to kicking the proverbial ant hill. The community's response to potential changes to a favorite ship has been more fierce than we expected. However, that does not change the core idea behind the change to Carriers, that one ship should not be able to do everything and do so effectively without penalty.

We've listened to the feedback, discussed the proposed changes and have another proposed list of changes. We do not see a problem with a ship being a jack of all trades and as long as it is a master of none, but when the ship is a master of all trades, then it departs from the original design concept.

We hope the new proposed changes will be more palatable than the previous. To find out what those proposed changes are, please read Carriers, the Swiss Army Knife of EVE???

Elmicker
Wreckless Abandon
Posted - 2007.10.24 00:57:00 - [2]
 

Edited by: Elmicker on 24/10/2007 01:18:08
I'm 10 lines in and already laughing. This is comedy GOLD.

ed: Finished reading it. So many ridiculously clueless statements, it makes me wonder if you guys even play this game.

for those who didnt bother reading, the tl;dr is "We're sorry and we're delaying the nerf will not be implemented YET".

Same line we got with compression and cloaking changes. As close as we're gonna get to a full refutation. But, a full refutation might be required on this one CCP.

ed:Just re-read the blog, and blimey, there's some serious horse **** and tripe in there. Have any of you actually ever once used a carrier in a TQ gang? You seem to think they're pwnmobiles.

War Bear
Body Count Inc.
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2007.10.24 00:58:00 - [3]
 

Edited by: War Bear on 24/10/2007 01:14:29
Edited by: War Bear on 24/10/2007 01:12:43
Same stuff repeated with more words saying the same crap. Not constructive but neither is this blog.

ed:

# A standard Carrier pilot (10 fighters) will need at least one "wingman" to field all his fighters.
# Delegation control is much easier with the improved gang member list and the new "watch list"

This ... this I completely and whole heartedly do NOT agree with. At no time do I want any other pilot touching fighters that don't belong to him especially when a 5 pack of them cost more than a tier 2 battleship. Why should a carrier not be able to control his own fighters? Why the need for wingman? Gah ...

Abyssal Angel
Caldari
The Collective
B O R G
Posted - 2007.10.24 00:59:00 - [4]
 

Edited by: Abyssal Angel on 24/10/2007 01:07:26
This dev blog is alot clearer on the thoughts behind the carrier nerf (which it still will be), no fault on Zulu's side but this covers the reasons as to why, something which you will find was asked countless times in the longish other comments thread.

Nerfing carriers to be better at the single roles, is an understandable and sensible approach, cause as it is right now, the carrier CAN indeed do most roles in EVE without the drawback.

As far as combat goes, Imagine 1 carrier versus 1 BS, no reason to ask who would win.

Same goes for 10 bs vs 10 carriers, just to a much larger magnitude.

And thus it scales up, to a point where, if you bring sufficient amounts of carriers, the only thing that could realistically beat you, are 1 of two blobs; a titan or a stealthbomber blob, both of which would have to be capable of instapopping or at least kill in 2 volleys, the entirety of the carrier blob.

If they were just badly hurt, good carrier pilots would recognize the need for logistics modules and splitting the blob into squads responsible of repping each others back up.

With the changes, the survivability would be the same and the carrier blob will still be a ***** to tackle, trust me, I spent some months in FAT oggling the MC and BOB et al blob, while still being virtually impossible to kill, the offensive abilities would dwindle.

I for one can support he sentiment brought forward in this argument, but I would likewise hope for an option to set the carrier for "gank-mode", think low and midslots to boost fighters damage, tracking, speed, capital fighters and what not.

The carrier will only continue to rise in popularity as more people train the skills for it and raise the ridiculous amount of isk for the skillbooks, so this change or something akin to it was needed.

Idara
Caldari
Queens of the Stone Age
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:00:00 - [5]
 

Edited by: Idara on 24/10/2007 01:01:08
How are they masters of all right now?

They get damped, they're screwed.

You don't want them to be as effective against smaller ships, yeah, makes sense. But again, they get damped, they're screwed. They have to recall their fighters to deal with the smaller ships, and if they can't deal with the tacklers fast enough, the big damage dealing ships that are apparently there to take the carrier down won't have to tank. They should be able to launch a crapload of Warrior IIs and BBQ the little frig fleet that's come after them without battleship support.

d026
temp holding
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:02:00 - [6]
 

Edited by: d026 on 24/10/2007 01:02:57

1 damp frig 2 damps = 15k lockrange chimera.
add anotehr damp whooha = 9k lockrange!




Xilimyth Derlin
Federal Fleet System
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:02:00 - [7]
 

Needing refits, but still keeping the flexibility. That resonates with the rest of EVE, but how exactly is this planned to be done?

IF the 5 fighter rule is still coming into play, I would highly urge a +dmg to the adv drone interfacing skill much as you did with the previous drone nerf. Keep the damage on par even if there are less drones.

maybe +30% per level under the control of a carrier, 60% under a mothership. But something to keep the survivability (which is already limited) where it is.

Just an unbiased recommendation.... alongside the possibility of a minor respec if it's REALLY bothering a player.

Alcrista Somez
Amarr
Wreckless Abandon
G00DFELLAS
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:03:00 - [8]
 

Originally by: Elmicker
Edited by: Elmicker on 24/10/2007 01:01:53
Edited by: Elmicker on 24/10/2007 01:00:14
I'm 10 lines in and already laughing. This is comedy GOLD.

ed: Finished reading it. So many ridiculously clueless statements, it makes me wonder if you guys even play this game.

for those who didnt bother reading, the tl;dr is "We're sorry and we're delaying the nerf will not be implemented YET".

Same line we got with compression and cloaking changes. As close as we're gonna get to a full refutation. But, a full refutation might be required on this one CCP.

Further ed:

CARRIERS ARE NOT SWISS ARMY KNIVES.
CARRIERS CANNOT PERFORM MULTIPLE ROLES ON THEIR OWN
TO PERFORM MULTIPLE ROLES A CARRIER REQUIRES A SUPPORT FLEET
YOU ALREADY HAVE THE SUPPORT FLEET REQUISITE, YOU DO NOT NEED A NEW ONE.
STOP THE NERF.


How the f**** did you read all that, digest it, and then post within six minutes?!

Oh, and youre in the wrong corp.. :)

Knuck
Minmatar
Reikoku Reloaded
KenZoku
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:03:00 - [9]
 

Glad to see you guys are taking a more rational look at things, appreciate the update. As the poster above me mentioned tho, remember they aren't exactly solo pwnmobiles. Damps and a bit of dps and you're ****ed.

Moms are really only a problem tackling wise in low sec but I'm sure you guys are looking into that.

Elmicker
Wreckless Abandon
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:05:00 - [10]
 

Edited by: Elmicker on 24/10/2007 01:07:44
Originally by: Alcrista Somez
How the f**** did you read all that, digest it, and then post within six minutes?!


Whorum Foring level 5, mate. It's rank 16, but totally ****ing worth it ;D. oh, and i posted a placeholder, then edited in a post as i went. That's why my post is different to your quote.


Speaking of editing:


This won't cut it CCP. Just drop the nerf and be done with it. Issue an apology and get back to nerfing the sub-capital drone boats (and the moros) like you should be. Oh, and giving the moa, eagle, ferox and vulture another turret.

Crovan
The Praxis Initiative
Sodalitas XX
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:06:00 - [11]
 

If the discussion has now shifted to forcing the carrier pilots to make choices with regard to what they will be specializing in, then those areas need individual boosts.

Damage: As is, a carrier's DPS isn't much more than a well-fitted Megathron or Astarte. This needs addressing if the pilot is choosing to specialize in damage, otherwise why not just fly one of these other ships, which has no problem wasting smaller ship classes?

Remote Repair: If the offensive capability is going to be nerfed by the triage module or similar proposed modules, then the capability needs to be much more pronounced (maybe the ability to rep sieging dreads? or retain the ability to be remotely repaired themselves?). As has been stated, the triage module, as it stands, is not a good solution.

Jump-Hauling: The idea of forcing a module to be fitted for corp hangars does a bit of havoc on the fourth wall, but I am not out and out opposed to the idea, so long as the carrying capacity gets significantly boosted (as it has been suggested will be the case).

In the end, carriers are no more a swiss-army knife than a Battleship, just on a different scale. Force specialization, sure, but do not nerf them. Make the specializations go beyond current capabilities and you will have a much less angry playerbase, and a game with a lot more flavor.

Sometimes, I wish the rumors about MC having devs on MSN were true...I'd love to talk to you guys in realtime.

Menellaix
The Arrow Project
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:07:00 - [12]
 

Maybe all the emo kids will get off the message boards now...

Knuck
Minmatar
Reikoku Reloaded
KenZoku
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:09:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: Menellaix
Maybe all the emo kids will get off the message boards now...


last I saw they were spamming sisi local, lol

LordVodka
Earned In Blood
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:10:00 - [14]
 

Edited by: LordVodka on 24/10/2007 02:36:13
Edited by: LordVodka on 24/10/2007 01:35:49

Can't say I'm happy but this is better then the last blog.

I like that you looked at some of our ideas in the previous forum section on the nerf. I really dislike the nerf to the drone control though, surely theres a better way to do this, I didnt spend 3 bil (ship, skill, and fit) to only use half a ship. Sure you don't want carriers to solo the world, I already guarantee they can't... Anyways at the current build cost of fighters its rediculous that you are asking me to send 100's of mil out to "low sp pilots" in my corporation or alliance and most likely suffer the costs of lost fighters myself. If you do this nerf then I just ask ccp to compromise with me and drastically lower fighter build cost and introduce t2 variants.

Edit: And 3rd time through i'm bck to my orignal train of thought lol...

Yaay
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:11:00 - [15]
 

Edited by: Yaay on 24/10/2007 01:14:32
There's a very simple solution to the problems you mention. Since the battlefield is the big concern here as most everything in eve relates to pvp... just remove the ability to launch normal drones. Then, provide new fighters with similar roles to drones... ie sentries (can't be assigned), ew, Missle, warp jamming (a must when fighters chase), webbing, etc.

Make everything capital class, and relate said fighters to the capital class. Currently, Fighters are not overpowered, and to even tweak them is not needed yet. Start small, work your way from there. Big changes **** of the community the most.

The problem you're not seeing is that your not tweaking carriers so as to change how they work, you're changing carriers to intentionally reduce their numbers on the battlefield. So what do we do as carrier pilots, rotate shifts of who gets to use the ship we trained years for? You've created a problem that has no solution in that regaurd. Fix blobbing in general if you don't like the numbers.

Vaedian GER
Excidium.
Executive Outcomes
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:11:00 - [16]
 

Edited by: Vaedian GER on 24/10/2007 01:20:09


I can't help myself, I'm getting the impression that since you lost T20 as the RKK CAPITAL FLEET BOSS you lost your sense for reality of capital ships in Eve. You're just talking theory!

No capital pilot with a bit of sense has 15/25 Drones/Fighters.
No Carrier/Mothership is a solo pwnmobile, a group of 4-5 experienced players can take out ANY carrier, a group of 30-40 experienced players will own a mothership. And that's the way it should be, no solo player should be a threat to a billion-isk capital ship and no random 10-man-gank-squad should be a worthy opponent to a mothership, it's just stupid.
No Carrier will ever be able to repair his support fleet at the front as long as you don't fix the 10-minute-lag! Less fighters won't help, we saw that in your 'Drones cut to half' patch. Also, most people trained for carriers to get fighters, they don't want to be remote repping alts, that's why the Triage module failed horribly.
Stop living in a dream world, start playing your own game again and fix the real problems please.

Like the Local, the Shipscanner that doesen't even deserve the name, the LAG, the problem that I can't load courier contracts into haulers in my carrier, the problem that I can't contract Amarr ships because of damaged crystals while other races can contract theirs perfectly...

Just a few examples where you should spend your time on. Leave the carriers alone!

Saladin
Minmatar
Minmatar Ship Construction Services
Ushra'Khan
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:13:00 - [17]
 

Edited by: Saladin on 24/10/2007 01:27:34
I have to admit, the assertations made in the dev blog look nice on paper but are baseless and not relevant to actual game play. Carriers are frequently attacked and destroyed by small to mid sized gangs. The effectiveness of ewar and web drones is overhyped, and the complete vulnerability of fighters (which can be easily baited and killed) is overlooked. Fighter/Drone selection is cumbersome in most fights and often fall victim to smart bombs. The author of the dev blog, as well as others at CCP, are completely out of touch with reality. How about you use your own kill mail system and tell us how many carriers are killed by non-caps, and how many carriers participate in kills (as major damage dealers) of non-cap ships?

Cosmo Raata
T-Cells
Moar Tears
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:14:00 - [18]
 

Now that this major catastrophy is being avoided, WHAT ABOUT AMARR? Is it ok to address this and ignore another talked about just as much? Where has the communication gone?

Its one thing that you were going to just suprise nerf carriers dispite how much everyone felt it was unneeded, but its a completely different monster when you promise a fix and never follow through. A lot of us are really beginning to dislike the attitude. I got forum banned recently for talking about Amarr!!?!? Is this what its coming to between players & developers? We dont want to follow through, so lets ignore it, ban those that bring it up and move on?!

To be continued...

Haakelen
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:14:00 - [19]
 

Good start. Now, make it better, and drop this completely. Then we'll all be happy, and you won't have to worry about trying to justify ridiculous claims that have no basis in the realities of carrier operation.

Baun
4S Corporation
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:14:00 - [20]
 

You might not like the fact that carriers can do many things well, but they are not even remotely overpowered.

If you want to make a carrier more specialized then you will need to make it SIGNIFICANTLY stronger in the areas in can specialize in. If you want to make it choose a type of ship to damage (i.e. anti-BS, anti-cruiser, anti-frigate, anti-capital fighters that are all the same sized) then you need to increase the damage it will do to that ships class by something on the order of 500-1000%.

If you want to make carriers capable of being front line logistics ships that aid smaller ship you need to significantly change the current remote repair system or dramatically increase the HP of smaller ships (keep in mind that this will require a similarly larger increase in fighter damage).

More than anything else though, you need to make motherships more special. At the moment it is an underpowered oversized carrier. It has a single utilizable special ability (no the clone vat does not count because it is worthless), the remote ECM burst, and that ability is fairly useless unless the mothership has about 5-6 mothership wingmates. A mothership right now is a virtual prison for its pilot and is only worth being stuck in for a currently overpowered trip to low sec empire.

You have alot of planning to do. My accounts will remain canceled until you demonstrate that the last idea you thoughtlessly pitched out there was an abberation. The mere fact that you are capable of thinking of such an inconceivably terrible idea makes me question whether there is any point in continuing to give you money.

Reos Vex
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:15:00 - [21]
 

Edited by: Reos Vex on 24/10/2007 01:15:43
Glad to see your going to look at things again.

You would better served not lying to the Eve player base. Telling us one day it's an idea and seeing it on SiSi the next day is not very cool.

I'm about done with the swinging of the nerf bat around here, every time you reach a goal CCP takes your legs out with their bat. When does PotBS come out again?

BlackKnight1717
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:15:00 - [22]
 

Stop trying to change the role of the carrier.

Most people baught their carriers purely for fighters and you keep trying to turn the carrier into a remote repping ship that not many people want. This is why triadge was such a huge failure. (that and rediculous skill requirements)

You can expect people to be very ****ed off if you change a ship that takes hundreds of hours of work to get into something no one wants.

Dal Thrax
Perkone
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:16:00 - [23]
 

Well achieving what CCP wants really isn't that hard. Just require that each carrier fit a "computer core" (and can only fit one maybe two on a MS).

A fighter control core, allows you to make use of drone control units and carrier skill base fighter control abilities but limits you to a max of five drones (not fighters out) and halve remote repping abiity.

A drone control core switches fighters and drones there.

A jump core, increases the carriers jump range from 3 to 5 but you may only have 5 drones out.

Logistics core: full logistics bonus but only 5 fighters or drones

Get the picture.

Dal

Kyguard
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:17:00 - [24]
 

Hmm, these changes might work if they're not implemented so harshly Razz

LordVodka
Earned In Blood
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:18:00 - [25]
 

Originally by: CCP kieron
We do not see a problem with a ship being a jack of all trades and as long as it is a master of none, but when the ship is a master of all trades, then it departs from the original design concept.


This quotes bs... sorry to say it but carriers arnt the master of pvp, seriously you can tank them in drakes, let alone bs's.

Baun
4S Corporation
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:19:00 - [26]
 

Originally by: Crovan

In the end, carriers are no more a swiss-army knife than a Battleship, just on a different scale. Force specialization, sure, but do not nerf them. Make the specializations go beyond current capabilities and you will have a much less angry playerbase, and a game with a lot more flavor.



Holy-intelligent-post batman!

If CCP were less arrogant they might actually listen to their player base that contains people like this and they wouldn't risk destroying 6 years of work in 3 days again.

Sevani
H A V O C
Cascade Imminent
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:20:00 - [27]
 

Posting while thread is fresh.

I don't fly a carrier, but have been flying a BS in fleet in 'the great war'

I don't see the correlation with what the dev blog thinks is true with what I've seen to be true.

"Fighting off any kind of foe, small or big." I've seen lots of solo carriers get killed. Maybe a Mom camping a lowsec gate, but other than that I'm don't think this is true.

"Great logistics ships" Lock time is horrid on any non cap ships. In small gang you can bet you butt they are jammed.

"Jump capable haulers " So? I've seen hulks jumped into belts inside Dreads.

"Excellent support ships - They can bring ships and modules behind enemy lines," Not very often and only very small ships.

"In fact, no other ship classes are as versatile and powerful without requiring you to refit for it." each of the above tasks requires a refit.

I am about to move into my first capital ship. I am no longer so thrilled about it.

-7

Yaay
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:21:00 - [28]
 

Originally by: Baun
You might not like the fact that carriers can do many things well, but they are not even remotely overpowered.

If you want to make a carrier more specialized then you will need to make it SIGNIFICANTLY stronger in the areas in can specialize in. If you want to make it choose a type of ship to damage (i.e. anti-BS, anti-cruiser, anti-frigate, anti-capital fighters that are all the same sized) then you need to increase the damage it will do to that ships class by something on the order of 500-1000%.

If you want to make carriers capable of being front line logistics ships that aid smaller ship you need to significantly change the current remote repair system or dramatically increase the HP of smaller ships (keep in mind that this will require a similarly larger increase in fighter damage).

More than anything else though, you need to make motherships more special. At the moment it is an underpowered oversized carrier. It has a single utilizable special ability (no the clone vat does not count because it is worthless), the remote ECM burst, and that ability is fairly useless unless the mothership has about 5-6 mothership wingmates. A mothership right now is a virtual prison for its pilot and is only worth being stuck in for a currently overpowered trip to low sec empire.

You have alot of planning to do. My accounts will remain canceled until you demonstrate that the last idea you thoughtlessly pitched out there was an abberation. The mere fact that you are capable of thinking of such an inconceivably terrible idea makes me question whether there is any point in continuing to give you money.


Bauns right, whats the point in having a specialized ship that can do things only about as well as any other ship, yet with longer lock times, yet more tank.

Stop going for a giant shift in it's roles and introduce things slowly to see how they effect it's overall performance. The Fear here is that you're going to kill it then it'll take 6 months to a year to revive the damn thing.

The irony here is that carriers aren't the do it alls you suggest. Carriers only become the do it alls when they have help. I can't move a carrier w/o support to back me up. I can't use a corp hanger effectively, that's my fleets job. I can't refit myself, I can only allow others. Put any carrier on it's own and you realize just how impractical it is. It takes the support to make it effective already.

Closer Still
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:21:00 - [29]
 

lets keep *****ing about these ideas until they dont nerf the carrier at all Laughing

but in all seriousness...

not enough has really been released for a very contstructive view point, but thank god they arent doing the previous nerf..

Breathing
The Edge Institute
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:23:00 - [30]
 

Originally by: Sevani
Posting while thread is fresh.

...I don't see the correlation with what the dev blog thinks is true with what I've seen to be true.

"Fighting off any kind of foe, small or big." I've seen lots of solo carriers get killed. Maybe a Mom camping a lowsec gate, but other than that I'm don't think this is true.

"Great logistics ships" Lock time is horrid on any non cap ships. In small gang you can bet you butt they are jammed.

"Jump capable haulers " So? I've seen hulks jumped into belts inside Dreads.

"Excellent support ships - They can bring ships and modules behind enemy lines," Not very often and only very small ships.





What I was trying to type.


Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (38)

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