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: first : previous : ... 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 ... : last (38)

Author Topic

CCP Oveur

Posted - 2007.10.24 10:04:00 - [271]
 

Originally by: DTee
Edited by: DTee on 24/10/2007 09:56:22
Originally by: CCP Oveur
Originally by: DTee
stuff

WAKE UP CCP.


I'm actually reading every word posted here and I'd like to hear those ideas of yours.


I personally think that currently with more pressing issues carriers are fine as they are. I agree with the devblog that the carrier is a jack of all trades but clearly it is not extremely pro-efficient at any one role.

Many players have expressed opinions and presented ideas, which I find are relatively tame compared to the fighter nerf that was initially suggested.

The carrier maybe able to act as a logitics ship, a transprot ship and a damage dealer but how does removing its drone bay help remove its flexibility? It makes the carrier COMPLTELY useless.

There are other ships with roles such as Transports or Logistics. I would have thought that removing triage mode or the logistics capabilities would be a more sensible idea in my opinion. Making carriers pos hugging and forcing capital pilots to delegate fighters is clearly not the answer.

I would also like to take this opportunity once again Oveur to ask you/CCP to present evidence backing the opinions on the dev blogs. THe opinions brought forth in these dev blogs, ar ethey agreed upon by the devs in various alliances?

I can see how carrier blobs of 50 - 150 ar ebeing used in the current war that is taking place but how does that justify the nerf of the smaller corps and alliances? Since the introduction of eve why dont we see EVERY SINGLE player flying them? it is fairly obvious that they have draw backs.

I am happy with the removal of certain roles of the carrier. I personally rarely use its remote repping ability or use it myself for transport. (even more so with the t2 freighters coming in to the arena) So why take its most valuable ability?

I hope this makes sense and apologize for any mistake or inaccuracies.


I also realize that the carrier soriginal role maybe have been that of a support ship but it is too late with the introduction of triage mode and various 180's being made on carriers. Firs they were what they needed to be then you buffed the HP then came along triage mode.

Why not go back to reducing the HP making it more risky to take your carrier on the field?

With the changes we have in mind, you'd be able to fulfill the jack of all trades, just not at the same time. The upside to that is that you can become more proficient at some of these roles than you are today. With this approach, you get the choice.

You fit the carrier for the roles you use it for. Those that use it as a frontline ships can do that, those that want to use it in a more logistical role, can do that. It's not us that choose for you, it's you. Just like you fit any other ship in EVE. That's what the first solution did, we chose for you. We're moving away from that but it requires a lot of work enabling that choice.

Till then, you are the jack of all trades as you were. After that, you'll be able to be more proficient at certain roles, by sacrificing abilities in others.

Gotta run for now, have an expansion to launch. Ta ta Wink

DTee
The Collective
Against ALL Authorities
Posted - 2007.10.24 10:04:00 - [272]
 

Edited by: DTee on 24/10/2007 10:33:23
Edited by: DTee on 24/10/2007 10:10:26
Originally by: Faridah
stuff



Oveur,

I completely agree with the opinions expressed in Faridah's reply. What is your opinion or thoughts about that? What ideas does CCP have other then a drone nerf?

In relation to your second reply. I can say that I do not mind having to choose for a specific role but wasn't hte initial idea to nerf drones rather awkward and inflexible?

I am sure there are alternative sother hten removing the number of fighters a carrier can field.

wouldn't you agree?

Reading the last line of your post, I would like to thank you for answering my questions and your time.


faltzswher
Posted - 2007.10.24 10:10:00 - [273]
 

Edited by: faltzswher on 24/10/2007 10:10:47
role based modules isnt a bad idea, tho the smse thing could be achieved with not letting a carrier use normal drones. - hint see my 2 fighters idea ^^

logistics wise - isnt there a triage module or somthing?

CCP Zulu

Posted - 2007.10.24 10:11:00 - [274]
 

Originally by: DTee
Edited by: DTee on 24/10/2007 10:06:50
Originally by: Faridah
stuff



Oveur,

I completely agree with the opinions expressed in Faridah's reply. What is your opinion or thoughts about that? What ideas does CCP have other then a drone nerf?

In relation to your second reply. I can say that I do not mind having to choose for a specific role but wasn't hte initial idea to nerf drones rather awkward and inflexible?

I am sure there are alternative sother hten removing the number of fighters a carrier can field.

wouldn't you agree?


It would only remove numbers of fighters if you fit that way. You could also possibly fit to have MORE fighters, but then you might have to give up some other abilities, like a corp hangar array or remote repping.

That's the beauty of this, YOU choose how you want to kit out, and could be more proficient at the role you choose then you are now.

Necronomicon
Caldari
The Weasels of Doom
Posted - 2007.10.24 10:11:00 - [275]
 

I have been on the receiving end of what happens when a solo carrier gets trapped by a small gang of recons etc, and it is alarming how impotent they can be.

You excuse of nerfing them for the good of the general community is an utter utter lie, you want to reduce lag, plain and simple.

By the way, there is a world of difference between carriers and motherships - The quicker you realise this, the better off you will be. Wanna nerf low sec motherships, by all means do it, low sec carriers are not an issue.

Until you are honest with the community, do not expect the community to back you up.

CCP Zulu

Posted - 2007.10.24 10:13:00 - [276]
 

Originally by: Necronomicon
I have been on the receiving end of what happens when a solo carrier gets trapped by a small gang of recons etc, and it is alarming how impotent they can be.

You excuse of nerfing them for the good of the general community is an utter utter lie, you want to reduce lag, plain and simple.

By the way, there is a world of difference between carriers and motherships - The quicker you realise this, the better off you will be. Wanna nerf low sec motherships, by all means do it, low sec carriers are not an issue.

Until you are honest with the community, do not expect the community to back you up.


This idea is not based around anything regarding lag. It's purely a balancing/design idea.

How are we not being honest?

Rusty PwnStar
Centus Inc.
Posted - 2007.10.24 10:14:00 - [277]
 

Originally by: CCP Oveur
New skillbooks: No, we'd like to use what's already out there.

More bandwidth: Three routes, make the current skills apply, new skills or modules.

More hell to unleash: Yes, that is one situation which can become possible, by sacrificing a other abilities when fitting.

Fighter Bombters and Interceptors: Yes, that's one of the things we're looking at. But to have a full setup of all possible Fighter combinations, you'd sacrifice something else.


The Biggest issue for me, was the fact the changes that were originally proposed, basically meant, the almost 2 years worth of focused skill training, was scuppered.
My fear would be, I get more skills, only for the goal posts to be moved again later.

But I and so many other, still don't see the issue as you put it to us.
Carriers and Motherships die often, so often now it's becoming none event. That strikes me as balanced already.
You always have to think twice before committing yourself into battle, you don't, you die, it's that simple.

Vanessa Vale
Posted - 2007.10.24 10:15:00 - [278]
 

Originally by: NavyMaster

You really are stupid! Let me explain : If you change something for the players but they dont want it then you are changing against them !

IM NOT TALKING ABOUT 1 PERSON .10 ,100 ,1000 IM TALKING ABOUT EVERYONE


Not everyone. I'd like to see capital ships removed from the game, specially given we will have those jumpable freighters.

There's enough blobbage in gate camps already. And, now, everyone is flying around in roaming gangs with a cyno on board. All the convenience of light ships with the immediate availability of heavy firepower and support at your discretion.

Serge
Amarr
Seraphin Technologies
KrautbreaK
Posted - 2007.10.24 10:15:00 - [279]
 

just some random thoughts

- enhance carrier / MOM support role
  • 1. what for? to further their frontline usability in fleet fights! COOL!

  • 2. what would it also lead to? chain-repping-carrier gangs? most probably

  • 3. who would yell about this? a lot of ppl that are NOT in a carrier / mom :)

  • 4. how can one counter this? by using more EW against carriers and by dumping the next available moon on the ganged MOMs

  • 5. how to counter massive EW when in a carrier? strengthen one's sensors instead of using the standard cap/tank fitting everyone uses? use ECM drones yourselves?

  • 6. oh shineyy, does this work? heck, np in small scale; but in fleet combat you first fight lag then your next hostile: all you can rely upon is your TANK

  • ok, back to no.5

  • 5b. you can still deploy more drones!! well, 5 ECM drones are not TEH killer ^^

  • 5c. yell for help!


[/]end of brain dumping random thougth patterns :)

Tash Murkon
Amarr
Posted - 2007.10.24 10:16:00 - [280]
 

Originally by: CCP Zulupark
saving face


stop posting

faltzswher
Posted - 2007.10.24 10:16:00 - [281]
 

Originally by: faltzswher
Edited by: faltzswher on 24/10/2007 10:10:47
role based modules isnt a bad idea, tho the smse thing could be achieved with not letting a carrier use normal drones. - hint see my 2 fighters idea ^^

logistics wise - isnt there a triage module or somthing?


Very HappyVery HappyVery HappyVery HappyVery HappyVery HappyVery HappyVery Happy - someoen commnet on my idea :p

and motherships arnt the smae as carriers the dev said that way bakc int he thread, and lets consider how to keep everyoen happy and whether or not ccp are smart/idiots/noobs/ or whatever. Maby we should see how the role of carriers is affected by the new shispc omining out - mauders and black ops should alter pvp any how...

MrTriggerHappy
Caldari
Priory Of The Lemon
Atlas Alliance
Posted - 2007.10.24 10:17:00 - [282]
 

Edited by: MrTriggerHappy on 24/10/2007 10:18:13
Quote:
With the changes we have in mind, you'd be able to fulfill the jack of all trades, just not at the same time. The upside to that is that you can become more proficient at some of these roles than you are today. With this approach, you get the choice.


But without new skills to support this, how can you still be the "jack of all trades" that you claim carriers and mom's can currently do.

Say for example, solo - you remove the ability of fighter control from 10 to 5 for solo use, would you increase fighter damage by 50% to compensate or give the carrier more fitting options (launchers for missile, or slots for guns) to compensate for the loss in damage

Quote:

You fit the carrier for the roles you use it for. Those that use it as a frontline ships can do that, those that want to use it in a more logistical role, can do that. It's not us that choose for you, it's you. Just like you fit any other ship in EVE. That's what the first solution did, we chose for you. We're moving away from that but it requires a lot of work enabling that choice.


Still, more skills to enhance these changes?

If you remove something, you have to replace it with something thats equal to retain the "Jack of all trades". The carrier is not the wtfpwnage mobile you claim it to be seriously, and yes it should take A LOT MORE than a handful of frigates to take it down! So you reduce fighter controls, some weaponry would be nice Wink

Max Teranous
Body Count Inc.
Against ALL Authorities
Posted - 2007.10.24 10:18:00 - [283]
 

OK, well with this dev blog we know why you are looking at changing carriers. The first one gave no reasoning, and suggested pretty much the worst way of changing them, then just left everyone flailing in the dark. Add in a few really ****ty dev comments & the change on sisi and you got yourself a lynch mob. Sad

I do think that some of your assumptions are wrong. That people use Triage for a start. Laughing That forcing the delegation of fighters is a good thing is another. As soon as you take the combat ability of carriers out of the pilots hands, they will not be put on the front line. That is totally contrary to CCP's thinking over the past year, and how most people want to use carriers themselves. However you do have a point that you can set up a standard fit carrier and do a bunch of things with them.

So fix this swiss army knife issue that seems to be the root of the issue, you can either do the module thing as described or create a few new capital ship classes. Keep the current carriers as "damage" carriers, have a new class for proper fleet support & logistics with a revamped triage module, and T2 freighters can be the hauling ones. I'd personally like to see new ships, because new shiny toys are good, and it's harder to switch between modes on the fly if you have to redock or jump out/in again. But either way will work to reduce the swiss army knife effect. And more importantly it won't completely alienate your player base.

Another issue that is kind of mentioned, but not explicitly is the numbers of carriers and blobbing with them. The only reason blobbing with carriers is worse than blobbing with any other ship type is the effectiveness of spider tanking. A potential fix is to put a mild stacking penalty on the amount of remote assistance you can recieve, for example say 10 or more remote reps on a ship (not a POS or station service!) starts to get heavily penalized. However i would much rather see a global fix to blobbing in general, is the 800 in local fights are just horrid experiences. But that is a discussion for another thread, not this one.

The only other issue i can see with capitals is low sec motherships. Despite seeing one go down, it is still too easy for them to **** about and then escape. Rather than a sweeping change that removes options such as banning from low sec or not allowing weapons to be used in low sec, give the players a method to tackle a mothership in low sec. It creates conflict (good!) and we ourselves can solve the problem by killing them. Very Happy Again, the exact mechanic is unimportant, be it a capital scram, or the scram immunity is reduced to X in built WCS in low sec, etc etc. Just some method to hold them down other than neuting to hell and bumping !

And for the record, i'm still ****ed that we were lied to about this "just being an idea for discussion".

Hatsim
The Collective
Posted - 2007.10.24 10:21:00 - [284]
 

Dear mister Ovour...

Here is my tought.

Carriers:

Designed to act primarily as a fighter carrier for small- to mid-scale engagements, its significant defensive capabilities and specially-fitted fighter bays make it ideal for its intended purpose...

Increase fighter space with 50%
Increase Fighter delegation with 1squad i.ex 1x5fighters delegated Per level of the carrier

Carrier Skill Bonuses:
same as befor but some revamped bonuses
i.ex :

Remove restrictions to Clone vat bays and have them implemented in the ship itself.

Increased Jump range to base 10.5ly maxx 21 ly with jump drive calibration V

make the carriers better to defend itself(Not with fighters but with tank.)

What would this change make ?

carriers containing about 20 interceptors interdoictors in the ship main rdy to deploy for fast engagement, pilot died clone @ carrier jumps in to the ship gets fighters delegated once undocked and slips of in battle again.

or 1 tier2bs and 1 tier 1 bs rdy to deploy if fleet ship is popped.

Make sure that the carriers dont die to gangs of 10+hac gangs roaming cus then a fleet of 40bs would pop it within the min.

my toughts and my 50cent (Yes im a newly carrier pilot and yes i am very angry at ccp for trying to Nerf this ship to oblivion!)

Jin Entres
Malevolent Intervention
Posted - 2007.10.24 10:22:00 - [285]
 

This blog alleviates my concerns a little, but I'm still worried.

The module approach to specialisation is interesting and may prove to be good, but is at best vague at the moment and highly dependent on implementation. Why not just penalties to existing modules, though? I'm already low on highslots. Like:

Boost fighter damage by 20%
Implement penalty of 50% damage to remote repping
Implement penalty of 50% damage if maintenance bay is over 50% full

Vóila?

And then start adding more support-oriented features that also penalise damage or cargo or whatnot when fitted/activated. Those could work in module form (such as for example Jump Optimiser: -20% damage, +1 light year jump distance or similar)

I would also really love to see moms become real supercapitals with unique abilities, not just oversized (not to mention overpriced) carries with identity issues. Their survivability is not that great in 0.0 anymore so something like capital smarties or partial immunity to dictors (not hactors) might be appropriate.

In any case, I do not want to see carriers or moms lose the low damage they have now when they are not explicitly specialised for something else. And certainly not the imperative to delegate and sit at a POS; that kind of gameplay is not fun.

Malachon Draco
eXceeded
Posted - 2007.10.24 10:25:00 - [286]
 

Ok, let me get this correctly.

What we would be looking at in 3 months time is it this?

A barebones carrier with the ability to deploy 5 drones/fighters, say a 250k m3 ship maintenance bay and reasonably crappy remote repping ability. And an added 2 mid/lowslots.

Then you will have a module called: Fighter Control Center, a lowslot module that enables the carrier to carry say 3 more drones/fighters. So if you fit 3 of those, you're back at 14 fighters?

And then there is the Remote Assistance Center, which improves your carrier to the point where it could again be a good remote repper again?

Or you'd have a 'Ship Hangar Module' which would increase your ship maintenance bay by say 100k m3 per unit, and if you fit 3 of them you are at 550k m3?

Is that the idea in practical terms (note, don't mind the numbers, just the concept?)

Of course to make it impossible to refit at a moments notice, each of these bays would probably be like 100k m3 in size so carriers can't just have a second fitting lying about in their cargo.

CCP Zulu

Posted - 2007.10.24 10:26:00 - [287]
 

Originally by: MrTriggerHappy


Still, more skills to enhance these changes?

If you remove something, you have to replace it with something thats equal to retain the "Jack of all trades". The carrier is not the wtfpwnage mobile you claim it to be seriously, and yes it should take A LOT MORE than a handful of frigates to take it down! So you reduce fighter controls, some weaponry would be nice Wink


As Oveur posted before, we'd like to keep the same skills as are now, and preferably not introduce a slew of new skills.

We aren't taking away the "Jack of all trades"-ness of the carrier, you would still be able to do everything you do now, except you'd have to fit for it specifically. You wouldn't be able to do it all off of one fitting.

Quite possibly this will beef up the carriers individual strengths, but as stated before, you would have to select which ones to beef and which ones to sacrifice each time.

Jaleera Kaisin
Amarr
Eve Defence Force
Insurgency
Posted - 2007.10.24 10:26:00 - [288]
 

Originally by: CCP kieron
... 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.
[/url]


Kieron- it Can't do everything without Penalty Rolling Eyes. In partyicular Carriers are a HUGE ISK sink.

Carrier advantages

1) Hauling stuff - Yes but not as well as new freighter
2) Moving stuff to 0.0 - only provided you have a ready cyno
3) Killing things - Hmmm - only as well as a T2 short range BS
4) Huge Tank
5) Repping POS (Is usually ok as POS doesn't move and can be locked)
6) Repping other carrriers (Spider tanking)
7) Projecting firepower - Some - when it works with delegation - but even ALL fighters delegated ony adds one BS worte of damage to Fleet

Carrier Penalties

01) 18 Months Training - more to max
02) 2 Billion ISK to fit - Husge loss when killed
03) EXTREMELY vulnerable to small gangs with a damp and scram
04) Small drones can't catch most inties leaving zero protection vs scrambling
05) Lock times - can't target anything in a useful time
06) Triage - Cap runs out in a few minutes = Dead carrier
07) No direct fire capability (discounting VERY short range smmart bomb)
08) Require support to get where they need to go (Cyno)
10) Cost of travel (Last weekend moving items for corp cost me 150 million ISK in isotopes!!)
11) Cost of fighters vs Ease with which fighters can be killed
12) Running costs - insurance ALONE is 1 billion ISK per year
13) Inability to usefully support a fleet in logistics role (can't lock in time to be useful)
14) Ease of bumping
15) Fighters can't catch/track small ships so can't hit them

Thats 2 minutes off the top of my head. CARRIERS ARE ALREADY BALANCED - yes they are useful utility vvessels, but they die easily and the ONLY thing they do better than any other ship is transport other assembled, ready for combat ships. Logistics are better with logistics ships, Command bonuses are given out better with command ships, damage is better with battleships, carriers can't tackle, are crap vs small ships and . . . .. well you get the idea

Carriers are a risky investmennt and NOT an end game ship. I use mine to transport my specialised ships to other places where I can use them, tacklers, HAC's, cov-ops, recons . . . .all do their own thing better than a carrier.

please don't add a whole bunch of new modules/skills to fix something which isn't broken and which will require yet MORE training time to use.

My skill plan for maxing my carrier still covers at LEAST another year and I have been training skills and prereqs for 18 months already. then I need to look at skilling up for HAC, Recon, Black Ops . . . . .

Ethidium Bromide
Amarr
ZEALOT WARRIORS AGAINST TERRORISTS
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2007.10.24 10:26:00 - [289]
 

i'm glad i finally trained carriers, started farming all sorts of stuff to be able to buy and fit one and now i got a LOT of wasted skillpoints AND ISK!

sorry CCP but you have to accept that some people also want to fly their carrier solo for ratting or whatever and i will not undock in a ship that can't defend itself.

thank you for wasting like 3 months of my time.

CCP Zulu

Posted - 2007.10.24 10:28:00 - [290]
 

Originally by: Malachon Draco

Is that the idea in practical terms (note, don't mind the numbers, just the concept?)



That's the rough idea, yes. We still have in no way started thinking about what modules to introduce, what they would do or anything of the likes, but the idea is that.

Ztrain
Versatech Co.
Blade.
Posted - 2007.10.24 10:29:00 - [291]
 

Edited by: Ztrain on 24/10/2007 10:31:11
Originally by: CCP Oveur
We have quite a number of programmers and millions of dollars working on lag, I have covered this numerous times in my dev blogs. It's ranging from optimizations and fixes which impair performance to rewriting our graphics engine and totally replacing our server cluster in early 2008 with supercomputing technology such as Infiniband.

Probably too little too late. The problem come in where you are saying we expect a backlash from this, you probably wont like it. But we decided to dedicate man hours programing it for Sisi anyways here you go.

Leading to the wondering if the only reason this isn't getting forced down everyones throats like the host of other bad changes from Rev 2 because people are canceling accounts over this.

At this point there's not much belief in the we're working on fixing problems when there's a significant push for walking in stations, nurfing of things that don't need nurfing, and performance has been crap from the past year and a half with no end in sight.

The Dev has cried wolf a few too many times I think.

Originally by: CCP Oveur
Gotta run for now, have an expansion to launch. Ta ta

That comment invoked more fear then anticipation.

z

MrTriggerHappy
Caldari
Priory Of The Lemon
Atlas Alliance
Posted - 2007.10.24 10:31:00 - [292]
 

Originally by: CCP Zulupark
As Oveur posted before, we'd like to keep the same skills as are now, and preferably not introduce a slew of new skills.

We aren't taking away the "Jack of all trades"-ness of the carrier, you would still be able to do everything you do now, except you'd have to fit for it specifically. You wouldn't be able to do it all off of one fitting.

Quite possibly this will beef up the carriers individual strengths, but as stated before, you would have to select which ones to beef and which ones to sacrifice each time.


Well that answers one part, but what about the other.

If you reduce the amount of fighters that can be fielded by a solo carrier, will there be fitting options to allow us to fit weaponry?

Something like flak cannons* would be good as a close range anti support weapon, so the carrier has a good chance to escape.. just spouting ideas here..

*Sort of similar to the "Goalkeeper" system fitted on HMS invincile


Stellar Vix
State War Academy
Posted - 2007.10.24 10:32:00 - [293]
 

I wonder what kind of new fighters are we are getting?

Anyways, yeah i sorta agree people are seeing carriers as the end game of eve, imo eve DOES NOT need an end game ever.

Just because i maxed out carrier doesnt mean there isnt anything else i havent done yet.

Also Just wondering, if a carrier was getting damped what is stopping him from assigning his drones to a gang mate still? damping carriers should only stop thier logistics abilities, not thier fighter output if they arent solo.

Anyways Few ideas

Logisitics Role
Imo triage mode should also deploy a field similar to the warp distrupt sphere instead everything in the sphere gets repiared or higher of one type of resists based on race. This would be useful in laggy situations and keeping most of the other bonuses with triage mode would be nice, maybe give the field bonuses with the purposed role training to make them better mobile hospitables.

Assault Role
I also want to see pilots being able to dock with a carrier (docking bay?), get jumped with the carrier and into to the new system then undock. Poor mans jump portal so to say but carriers and motherships would have a limited amount of room, probably just enough for said wingmen needed for the fighter assignment. YOu can also incrase the usefulness of the dock option by allowing gang members to dock up get target locks lost and get fixed up at the cost of fuel/materials on the carrier before getting flung back out again and of course if the carrier goes down, so does everyone onboard, Triple Kill anyone?

Supply Role
I love the idea of fitting a maintenance bay for modules and replacement ships or expanding the cargo spaces for them so pilots can refit, but there could be cargo bay converters that eat up drone space for more cargo to help out the cargo carry ability also why not give all capitol ships a fuel bay? this might limit thier deployments or choices of seige mode or jump fuels?

Support Role
Possibly have a new seige module for the 'carrier' mode only, where pilots would setup and be able to field thier many fighters at once or get bonuses to field more at the cost of mobility and logicists modules and be immune to ewar.

How to encourage fighter assignment
1 make a cheaper versions that do lesser damage like a light, medium, heavy then again the new drone changes will have drone assignment as well which reminds me can i launch more drones after assigning them to somone with thier new system comming out with gaurd and assist? Also what would happen to fighters belonging to a assigned guy and the carrier parent already has 5 out when a return to base condition exists for fighters away from home.

2 the fighters get bonuses based on what ship theya re assigned to, frigates will receive frigate like agility speed and damage, while battleship assignments will have fighters that are more in line with killing other battleships but vunerable to other ship types.

3 fighters should give bonuses to the ship they are assigned to, along the lines of makeing the contoller harder to kill.

4 Drone bonuses from the carrier remain, OR uses the drone bonuses of assigned pilot.

5 specialized ship for commanding fighters and drones assigned to it giving them more bonuses than normal ship assignment, also make them easy to deploy from carriers. Something along the lines of the seen only on database corvettes sounds real nice.

bliskner
Amarr
LifeLine Solutions
Posted - 2007.10.24 10:33:00 - [294]
 

first of all these extra modules like fittable hanger bays + increasement in maintenance and corp hanger sounds cool

but did anyone of you dev/blog guys recently fly a carrier on tq?

as mentioned before they get dampened and are dead, thats how its actualy working on tq right now

thats one of the main reasons why carriers are not going to the front lines atm

carriers should not be unkillable, but they should have the chance to defend themselves, once a carrier is damped they can just defend themself with smartbombs *smartbomb carrier ftw* damn it

what i would like to see:
- moms are not able to get into lowsec or can be effected by ew in lowsec ( scrambler dampener )
- double the corp hanger size of carrier
- increase the ship maintenance bay size
- maybe make it impossible to load industry ships into the carriers ship maintenance bay ( barges, haulers, exhumers, transport ships ) ( we get a jump capable freighter for that )
- maybe make sensor dampeners less effective on carriers that are not in a gang with more then 3 members
- screw the max controllable drones to 5 idea pls

ArmyOfMe
Hysera.
Posted - 2007.10.24 10:36:00 - [295]
 

Originally by: MrTriggerHappy

If you reduce the amount of fighters that can be fielded by a solo carrier, will there be fitting options to allow us to fit weaponry?



I dont think they are changing that anymore from what ive read in the blog

Sinder Ohm
Demonic Corp
G00DFELLAS
Posted - 2007.10.24 10:36:00 - [296]
 

I also think that CCP are not going through with this due to the cancelation of accounts.

I havent seen an answer yet to the question if CCP could log on TQ with a carrier gang that is not supported and they fight a standerd ewar roaming gang with some bs support. I beleive once you have done this you will see things more from our point of view.

Ztrain
Versatech Co.
Blade.
Posted - 2007.10.24 10:38:00 - [297]
 

Originally by: CCP Zulupark
That's the rough idea, yes. We still have in no way started thinking about what modules to introduce, what they would do or anything of the likes, but the idea is that.

Is it just me or did we just get a release of the CCP dev moto?

Z

DTee
The Collective
Against ALL Authorities
Posted - 2007.10.24 10:42:00 - [298]
 

Edited by: DTee on 24/10/2007 10:51:16
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
Originally by: Malachon Draco

Is that the idea in practical terms (note, don't mind the numbers, just the concept?)



That's the rough idea, yes. We still have in no way started thinking about what modules to introduce, what they would do or anything of the likes, but the idea is that.


Thank you for finally providing some clear answers and detail on the changes.

If something MUST be done then, I do not mind fitting for a certain role as long as I can perform other roles too but not as well as I would be able to if I specifically fit for that role.

Conclusion, I think carriers should be left alone as they are but if they NEED to be fixed badly then looking at changes menionted in THIS thread maybe the right direction.

One more question,

Have you flown a carrier on TQ recently? in pvp?

Cevin North
Posted - 2007.10.24 10:45:00 - [299]
 

CCP,

hank you for taking all our ideas into consideration. I am glad you guy`s did.
From what ive read in your post, and i hope i read it all correctly, it looks like we can keep all our carriers abilities, just not at the same time.

Like (for example) have a huge ship bay, and leave 15 fighters at home, or have a huge fighterbay and leave the ships home... or do something inbetween and do a little of both

I peronatly do not think that is a bad idea, but please keep in mind that if we switch roles we need more modules at multiple places, so drop the price of the fighters a bit would be verry helpfull. It also wouldnt hurt as much if we loose a 5 mil isk assigned fighter compared to a 20 mil one if we need to assign.

a idea might be using the assigning possibility with fleet command module`s thatthere is a "carrier command module that needs to be fitted in a midslot" and let the role of that change. (do give the extra midslot though).

Clamn8er
Gato Nero
Posted - 2007.10.24 10:46:00 - [300]
 

CCP, consider yourselves very lucky.

We've been secretly negotiating the purchase of a Jovian derived time machine and were all tooling up to jump our (still un-nerfed) Caps back through the EVE wormhole to kick your asses.

Would give this planet something a little more serious to worry about than global warming... Twisted Evil

So! Though you have breezed entirely past everything said and done the last couple of days; and though you present these new ideas as if these were exactly what was intended all along,

we still love you. YARRRR!!

Thanks to Oveur's intervention, maybe we can start to examining this issue from the pespective of tweeks (and, dare I suggest it - enhancements???)

while dropping these ridiculous discussions / suggestions of NERFS.

PS. See how much better everything goes with a bit of constructive dialogue?? Glad to see no[i] cookies being handed around again too Cool.

PPS. I'm still buying that time machine, just in case you get it in your heads that you are entirely in the clear... Cool Twisted Evil


Pages: first : previous : ... 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 ... : 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