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 : ... 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 ... : last (38)

Author Topic

CCP Zulu

Posted - 2007.10.24 10:48:00 - [301]
 

Originally by: MrTriggerHappy
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




Where does it say in the blog that that's what we're doing?

Ma Zhiqiang
Minmatar
Huang Yinglong
Posted - 2007.10.24 10:51:00 - [302]
 

I think the new changes to carriers and motherships are generally good.
Just make sure the lag and bugs get sorted... ;)

Mersault
Gallente
The Pie Factory
Posted - 2007.10.24 10:55:00 - [303]
 

Edited by: Mersault on 24/10/2007 10:56:59
>Where does it say in the blog that that's what we're doing?

Zulu, is your point about a solo carrier not being able to field all his fighters wihtout delegating, or are you responding to a suggestion of a different way of a carrier having defensive capability?

"Something like flak cannons"

He didn't say 'CCP are doing this' the guy made a suggestion is all.


Kerfira
Kerfira Corp
Posted - 2007.10.24 10:56:00 - [304]
 

Edited by: Kerfira on 24/10/2007 10:57:31
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.

Have you given any thoughts to blobbing?
IMHO, lag in itself is not the problem. It is merely a symptom of the real problem, ie. that people bring themselves, their friends, their allies, their not-so-good friends, and people they don't like, to every battle they fight.
A large part of that is because of POS warfare, and not least the changes you've made to POS warfare lately with shootable structures and station services.
You've been promising us to solve lag for years now using all kinds of technical magic, so pardon me if I don't believe your current spell will work either.
IMHO, what you need to implement is some kind of crowd control so bringing more people is not a win button.... Lets bring this game back to being a game of strategy, tactics and skill (which is not the same as skillpoints).

On logistics......
You need to rethink the way logistics work if you want carriers to work in that role. What I personally think needs to be done is that the logistics functionality is decoupled from the weapons mechanics.
Ie. you should no longer need to lock targets to repair them. A restriction could be that people needed to be in your gang to be repaired.

On triage module.....
It's broken! Fair and square! Either you need to remove the 'lock in place for 10 minutes' restriction, or you need to up the self-sustaining capabilities when in triage mode massively. Currently using triage is equivalent of a dead carrier.

DTee
The Collective
Against ALL Authorities
Posted - 2007.10.24 10:56:00 - [305]
 

Edited by: DTee on 24/10/2007 11:00:37
Edited by: DTee on 24/10/2007 10:58:27
Originally by: Clamn8er
stuff


I would have to agree the initial dev blog with the proposal was vague and lacked enough details to ensure that the player at large got an accurate view of what might be implemented.

I am not sure whether they have just decided to take on board the feedback or originally intended to implement the changes in the solution currently being presented.

I think the lack of communication up till this point is what has upset most people, CCP's saving grace has been COMMUNICATING.

Thanks once more :)

Liv Dawn
PPN United
Against ALL Authorities
Posted - 2007.10.24 10:58:00 - [306]
 

didnt read through but some ideas.

it sounds very logical that carriers have to be changed since as recognized they are way to nice. besides they really shine in large groups and gaining of scale effects like no other ship.

but:
making people to asign fighters to others seems an unlucky solution. it will force more people to come to fleet fights which was planned to be discouraged, wasnt it? no prob in small scales but having another 100 people in fleets on both sides is nothing anybody really wants. besides frigates cant jump with carriers only with ms and clone vat bays. so how do you bring in your wingman?

remake carriers by specialising them and at the same time offering other possibilities. many people trained for the carrier as a fighting vessel. so let the common carriers specialise in this role. no corp hangar, no big cargo, no triage, just many deadly fighters. mebbe the fighters adjusted as capital weapon.

as compensation introduce an new capital ship class with similar requirements which specialises in the supporting role. cant be that hard.

this way the mothership definatly will remain a supercapital and a swiss knife and normal carriers will have their roles fixed. with the jump freighters the logistical issue is solved as well.


Mashie Saldana
Minmatar
Veto Corp
Posted - 2007.10.24 10:59:00 - [307]
 

So a solo carrier can be damped to death? Oh noes, funnily enough so will any other ship in game as well. Damps are one of the very few counters there are to carriers today.

I'm not surprised MC are at the people crying most about these changes but then again you are the inventors of the carrier blob...

MrTriggerHappy
Caldari
Priory Of The Lemon
Atlas Alliance
Posted - 2007.10.24 10:59:00 - [308]
 

Originally by: Mersault
Edited by: Mersault on 24/10/2007 10:56:59
>Where does it say in the blog that that's what we're doing?

Zulu, is your point about a solo carrier not being able to field all his fighters wihtout delegating, or are you responding to a suggestion of a different way of a carrier having defensive capability?

"Something like flak cannons"

He didn't say 'CCP are doing this' the guy made a suggestion is all.




Thank you, that was my point. If your going to nerf its soloability yet maintain its "jack of all trade" status, you need to compensate or the carrier will be pointeless

DTee
The Collective
Against ALL Authorities
Posted - 2007.10.24 10:59:00 - [309]
 

Edited by: DTee on 24/10/2007 10:59:58
Originally by: Liv Dawn
lots of stuff




You should read it there have been some insightful posts by the dev's!

OMG I know its a miracle!

CCP Zulu

Posted - 2007.10.24 11:01:00 - [310]
 

Originally by: Mersault
Edited by: Mersault on 24/10/2007 10:56:59
>Where does it say in the blog that that's what we're doing?

Zulu, is your point about a solo carrier not being able to field all his fighters wihtout delegating, or are you responding to a suggestion of a different way of a carrier having defensive capability?

"Something like flak cannons"

He didn't say 'CCP are doing this' the guy made a suggestion is all.




I hope I didn't come off disrespectful, I meant to say that 'where does it say in the devblog that we'll be reducing the amount a carrier can field solo?' simply because it should not be in there.

Sure, if you fit for all logistics under the new proposal, you'll have to sacrifice a few fighters, but if you fit for all damage, you probably will be able to field all your fighters yourself.

Note that so far this is a rough idea, so we haven't ironed out specifics. But then again, this isn't coming out in the next expansion.

Popychacz
Constructive Influence
Posted - 2007.10.24 11:01:00 - [311]
 

Edited by: Popychacz on 24/10/2007 11:03:42
Originally by: CCP Zulupark

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

How are we not being honest?


Hi there!
So you spend entire year squeezing out performance fixes just to have it all ruined by one balance change? (forcing people to take alts into battlefield in order to be able to use full offensive power of their mains?).
How the hell are we supposed to respect you?

Design 101 - you need to encompass every part of design process - influence on lag, possibility of adding new features, graphics and systems and balancing of other elements your balance process. Limiting yourself to "reworking fighter amount on caps and supcaps" is just...dumb.

Let me give you few examples:
1) The 0.0 transport role of Carrier. It's getting nerfed by by the introduction of jump capable freighters. Everyone who can afford them will use them over carriers, thus making carrier just a mid-range transport. If you do t2 freighters correctly, carriers will nerf themselves nicely, and everyone will applaud and love you.

2) The effectiveness of carriers against small gangs and small ships. Well, if you still had t20 as Cap Fleet FC, you would know such usefulness is already very low and with introduction of EAS, it's getting nerfed to hell. This field actually need an improvement.

3) Carriers as an endgame ship. Well, Battleship is an endgame vessel - it so much more powerful than cruiser and 95% of EVE flies it! It's really a silly argument. Drop it, it will make you look more intelligent.


Now for solutions:


1. Give us new functionalities, not a "extra hi-slot", but actual an actual new functionality that will make carrier more useful as support ship than direct fire vessel.
Deployable anti drone/fighter platform; PG-heavy ship tractor beams; remote hardeners and damage boosters; "fast-lock/ew-immunity" deploy module even deployable mini-POS shield for on-field maintenance duties. There is a whole lot of things that can be added, things that while providing nice boosts for other ships are useless for carriers themselves.
Think outside the box. Make us gleam, make us be happy we have a carrier, make us so happy we will forget carrier actually has offensive capabilities.



2. Give us new vessels to fill the void for heavy fire fleet vessel. We have been flying battleships for what like 5 years now, it's really time for a change. Embrace the idea that BS are a support (albeit very heavy one), and give us some behemot that will make using carriers as core of the fleet just silly. Don't be afraid to balance by isk cost - you did it to HACs, it's finally the time to do it to BS.

You're giving a gigantic boost to new players with EAS ships, give your older playerbase something big and shiny, something so awesome people would actually go back to playing just so they can fly one (or blow up one!).


Oh and don't forget to fix bombers, POS warfare and boosters. Just this time, do it properly.

Gyle
Caldari
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
Atlas Alliance
Posted - 2007.10.24 11:02:00 - [312]
 

Originally by: CCP Oveur


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


Dude if you get the chance and havent already please check out my proposal.

Latest carrier concept


Xune
Body Count Inc.
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2007.10.24 11:04:00 - [313]
 

Not good enough for me. Carriers and Moms are fine as they are, anyone who thinks othewise has no glue. All the points your fielding for the " pro" nerf carrier side are fine on paper but if you would have spend more then 2 day´s in one you would have already realysed thats pretty much crap.

MrTriggerHappy
Caldari
Priory Of The Lemon
Atlas Alliance
Posted - 2007.10.24 11:05:00 - [314]
 

Originally by: CCP Zulupark
Originally by: Mersault
Edited by: Mersault on 24/10/2007 10:56:59
>Where does it say in the blog that that's what we're doing?

Zulu, is your point about a solo carrier not being able to field all his fighters wihtout delegating, or are you responding to a suggestion of a different way of a carrier having defensive capability?

"Something like flak cannons"

He didn't say 'CCP are doing this' the guy made a suggestion is all.




I hope I didn't come off disrespectful, I meant to say that 'where does it say in the devblog that we'll be reducing the amount a carrier can field solo?' simply because it should not be in there.

Sure, if you fit for all logistics under the new proposal, you'll have to sacrifice a few fighters, but if you fit for all damage, you probably will be able to field all your fighters yourself.

Note that so far this is a rough idea, so we haven't ironed out specifics. But then again, this isn't coming out in the next expansion.


Quote:
In an effort to shift the role of Carriers and Motherships from being assault ships to fleet logistic ships, as well as reducing their solo fighting ability, we wanted to limit the amount of fighters a carrier or mothership could field solo. By allowing them to control only up to 5 fighters themselves, but delegate up to 15/25(Carrier/Mothership w. drone control units) we're making them rely more on support if they are to unleash their full combat potential.


Right there.. thats where Wink lol

velmistr Ecco
Caldari
InNova Tech Inc
Detrimental Imperative
Posted - 2007.10.24 11:06:00 - [315]
 

I don't fly carriers so I should say it is nice to nerf them. However CCP's way to do it doesn't seem to be nice. I like the idea that fighters should have problems to hit small ships (frigs, destroyers). I don't like the idea of necessity of wingmen. Anyone cannot be forced to share his belongings (drones) - it should be option but not a must.

If all my carrier friends will cancel their subscription it will be a very boring game. I believe that capital ships are fine as they are. They are extremely hard to train and they cost a lot of money (even insured ones) - they cannot leave system solo, so they have major drawback.

Matthew
Caldari
BloodStar Technologies
Posted - 2007.10.24 11:07:00 - [316]
 

Originally by: Rusty PwnStar
Carriers and Motherships die often, so often now it's becoming none event. That strikes me as balanced already.


Rate of death is not necessarily an indication of balance, or lack thereov.

Lets take ships A, B, C and D. We look at killboards, and see that ships A and B hardly ever die, and ships C and D die a lot. This leads us to the question, are ships C and D too powerful?

We then look deeper at the actual game mechanics behind it, and find the following:

Ship A never dies because it's too powerful and almost impossible to kill when being used effectively. This is where the titan was before the DDD nerf and jump-jamming dictor bubbles.

Ship B never dies because it's massively underpowered, to the point where no-one ever flies it in the first place.

Ship C is slightly overpowered, and thus used far more than the alternatives, however using it still requires putting it at risk, especially to others of the same slightly overpowered type. It's high death rate is more a reflection of it's high use rate than anything else.

For ships B and C, imagine there are only 2 battleships in the world, and one (C) is twice as good at everything than the other (B). Everyone would fly C, no-one would fly B. None of B would die, lots of C would die, yet it is still C that is overpowered.

Finally, Ship D is dying a lot because it's the only option for the low-to-middle level players, yet the high-level counter is far too powerful, slaughtering entire fleets solo. (this high-level counter also runs the risk of being a Ship A). This is the situation an overly powerful carrier, and the "capitals online" effect risks causing, with newer players having to zerg disproportionate numbers of battleships in to stand any chance at all.

Originally by: MrTriggerHappy
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?


Well, with this new proposal, it looks like you can choose to retain a high number of fighters, in exchange for sacrificing something else. So if you know you're going to tend to be flying solo, you could boost up your fighter complement (potentially even beyond your current limit), at the expense of your remote repping ability and/or hangar/maintenance array (after all, if you're on your own, losing those is no great loss anyway).

But it does mean that if you want your carrier to be a remote-repping, ship-refitting gang-boosting monster, then you'll be giving up a significant chunk of your personal firepower to achieve that, and potentially be very vulnerable outside the group.

Which sounds perfectly reasonable to me - optimize for solo work, and you're not as much help to the group. Optimize for group work, and you struggle solo.

DTee
The Collective
Against ALL Authorities
Posted - 2007.10.24 11:09:00 - [317]
 

Edited by: DTee on 24/10/2007 11:12:11
Originally by: Popychacz
mini-POS shield for on-field maintenance duties.


Now that is an idea, I like. I can imagine a carrier in triage mode with a pos shield around it with 5 Interceptors taking refuge inside and getting repaired. In the midst of a raging battle....

Bravo, Sir!

Lily allen
Posted - 2007.10.24 11:09:00 - [318]
 

Minimum Lock Range 30Km



Ok so I'm posting this from an alt cause I dont wanna be the most unpopular char in EVE :)

Think of the tradition role of a US carrier group.

The Carrier at the center of the formation is used to attack far off targets.
The Cruisers and Destroyers that support the carrier are there to eliminate threats that get close by.


Why not implement the same Idea in Eve by giving Carriers / MS a minimum lock range.
and a huge ( HUGE ) maximum lock range.

This way Battleships orbiting a carrier at say 25Km would be unlockable by the carrier and would basically wtfowgpwn it.
If the Battleships are out at range , say 100km its the Battleships that get fried.

Allow use of smartBombs for very close range to prevent frig bumping etc.

Perhaps give carriers/ms a bonus to stasis web range to help them prevent BS etc from getting close.

But you take a carrier/ms into a close range combat situation without support you can pretty much kiss it goodbye.

Carriers/MS pilots have the CHOICE to assign there fighters to gangmates to help defend againt close in targets but they cant defend themsleves at close range by themselves.

remove MS invulnerability to warp scrambling.



CCP Zulu

Posted - 2007.10.24 11:10:00 - [319]
 

Originally by: Popychacz
Edited by: Popychacz on 24/10/2007 11:03:42
Originally by: CCP Zulupark

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

How are we not being honest?


Hi there!
So you spend entire year squeezing out performance fixes just to have it all ruined by one balance change? (forcing people to take alts into battlefield in order to be able to use full offensive power of their mains?).
How the hell are we supposed to respect you?

Design 101 - you need to encompass every part of design process - influence on lag, possibility of adding new features, graphics and systems and balancing of other elements your balance process. Limiting yourself to "reworking fighter amount on caps and supcaps" is just...dumb.

Let me give you few examples:
1) The 0.0 transport role of Carrier. It's getting nerfed by by the introduction of jump capable freighters. Everyone who can afford them will use them over carriers, thus making carrier just a mid-range transport. If you do t2 freighters correctly, carriers will nerf themselves nicely, and everyone will applaud and love you.

2) The effectiveness of carriers against small gangs and small ships. Well, if you still had t20 as Cap Fleet FC, you would know such usefulness is already very low and with introduction of EAS, it's getting nerfed to hell. This field actually need an improvement.

3) Carriers as an endgame ship. Well, Battleship is an endgame vessel - it so much more powerful than cruiser and 95% of EVE flies it! It's really a silly argument. Drop it, it will make you look more intelligent.


Now for solutions:


1. Give us new functionalities, not a "extra hi-slot", but actual an actual new functionality that will make carrier more useful as support ship than direct fire vessel.
Deployable anti drone/fighter platform; PG-heavy ship tractor beams; remote hardeners and damage boosters; "fast-lock/ew-immunity" deploy module even deployable mini-POS shield for on-field maintenance duties. There is a whole lot of things that can be added, things that while providing nice boosts for other ships are useless for carriers themselves.
Think outside the box. Make us gleam, make us be happy we have a carrier, make us so happy we will forget carrier actually has offensive capabilities.



2. Give us new vessels to fill the void for heavy fire fleet vessel. We have been flying battleships for what like 5 years now, it's really time for a change. Embrace the idea that BS are a support (albeit very heavy one), and give us some behemot that will make using carriers as core of the fleet just silly. Don't be afraid to balance by isk cost - you did it to HACs, it's finally the time to do it to BS.

You're giving a gigantic boost to new players with EAS ships, give your older playerbase something big and shiny, something so awesome people would actually go back to playing just so they can fly one (or blow up one!).


Oh and don't forget to fix bombers, POS warfare and boosters. Just this time, do it properly.



I mean no disrespect, but did you actually read the blog? There are ideas in there that are pretty much focused exactly towards what you describe, I.E. more flexability, and making it better at the role YOU choose for it.

As for the performance comment, again, the fighter delegation change isn't there.

Mashie Saldana
Minmatar
Veto Corp
Posted - 2007.10.24 11:11:00 - [320]
 

Originally by: CCP Zulupark
Sure, if you fit for all logistics under the new proposal, you'll have to sacrifice a few fighters, but if you fit for all damage, you probably will be able to field all your fighters yourself.

Note that so far this is a rough idea, so we haven't ironed out specifics. But then again, this isn't coming out in the next expansion.

It would be nice if carriers base number of fighters were 5 but that they get a multiplier bonus to DCUs, each DCU gives 2 fighters on carriers and 4 fighters on motherships. That way you have to sacrifice logistics/smart bombs for fighter damage.

Maybe also introduce fighter damage mods in the low slots to let people balance gank and tank.

Xurx
Wreckless Abandon
Un-Natural Selection
Posted - 2007.10.24 11:11:00 - [321]
 

Edited by: Xurx on 24/10/2007 11:13:00
well nobody wants eve to turn into capital ship online, so something has to be done....

but nerfing the carrier / mothership pilot ability to field a certain number of fighters / drones is not a good option.
Why ? with the changes ccp wants to perform, no sane carrier pilot will ever put that carrier into the middle of a fight.

What i would personally do is remove the ability to assign fighters to other people, thus removing the carriers sitting "almost safe" at POS's. (yeah yeah i know they have to sit out of the shield, but still the pos guns are a good defense)
You want to use those fighters ? Good, but you'll have to field that carrier on the battlefield.


Another problem is the remote repping, 100+ BS/BC/hacs/cruisers, should be able to kill a carrier pretty "fast", which is not a problem atm, but the problem is when there's loads of carriers, they just remote rep each other,
while letting their fighters kill on that entire fleet. So why not make a new probe launcher, that works like interdictor bubbles, but once launched near carriers / motherships, prevents those from using or being remote repped.
Or a module that can be fitted on small ships that prevents the target to be remote repped. Thus the FC calling primaries can order someone to go in and put a "non-remote rep point" on the target.

Just my 2 cents....flame away Razz

Kronn Blackthorne
VMF-214 Blacksheep
Posted - 2007.10.24 11:11:00 - [322]
 

oki , let say we need a change
i can understand carrier / motherships can t be the swiss-knife in a fleet ( ???? ) . i wouldn t use this word , but fine , it s right we have lot of function .

u want to include carrier / motherships into a fleet ? so let talk bout specialization .i can admit , according ur experience with carriers / motherships , that we ( as cap pilots ) can kill every single ships easly .this shouldn t happen , , so let say we should be able to obliterate BS and higher but not smaller ship ( seems logical )
in this case , give us the tools ( fighters ) to do it properly , because atm , sorry , but i never smoked a BS in 0.2 sec and the tanking / dmg ability from fighters is pathetic .
we shouldn t be able to spider-tank and be offensive ? oki , i still can admit it .
in this other case give us the tool ( triage mod ) to do it properly ....cause at this moment the triage mod is a pure joke , well actually all the cap remote thing is a joke ( see cap usage , i m sure u know what i m talkin bout with ur huge experience of carriers / motherships )

we used them as transport ships , oki , u are implementing jumping freighter ....so it s fine .

to conclude , i m not against a change , but those ships recquired lot of investissement ( time / isks wise ) so yea , i damn think i should be able to obliterate 3 or 4 bs with them , but no , u are right , i shouldn t be able to do everything ...

my 3 accounts were cancelled and still are ... i m waitin to see the changes u gonna bring before reactivating .

regards

ThisAlt IsUseless
Posted - 2007.10.24 11:12:00 - [323]
 

Edited by: ThisAlt IsUseless on 24/10/2007 11:13:49
i repeat myself again...
no one think that would be a good idea?

create many new carrier, 3-4 for each race, each with specific role, like any other ship class right now

then for the current carrier in game, allow the owner to "transfer" his current carrier into a new one in that new list of choice

same with BPO

don't change skill req
don't change build cost


just split the current carrier into multiple one..

CCP Zulu

Posted - 2007.10.24 11:12:00 - [324]
 

Originally by: MrTriggerHappy
stuff...
Right there.. thats where Wink lol


That refers to the old change, trying to explain where the idea for it came from.

Inflexible
Shokei
Posted - 2007.10.24 11:12:00 - [325]
 

Originally by: CCP Oveur
It's their versatility, at the same time, without drawbacks.

I agree carriers are very versatile. But I don't think they are terribly good at all things they can do given their price, required skills and vulnerability. There is probably main difference between playerbase and CCP opinions.

Motherships on the other side, are IMO seriously underpowered. (no, I'm NOT and probably never be a MS pilot).
They should be moving stations with crew, never able to vanish by logging off. Make them corporate or alliance asset which cannot be run by single person. If needed, let them dock for reasonable price (50M+).

Dupac
Subite
Posted - 2007.10.24 11:13:00 - [326]
 

OK this blog is better than the first (it's not saying much)

The thing that worries me is:

First blog it was

"What we want is pretty basic: We want to make fighter wielding capital ships more reliant on their support fleet and less of a direct über deathbringer."

Which obviously was nonsense as anyone who has flown a carrier will know.

The second blog is based on "Carriers, the Swiss Army Knife of EVE???" about how they can do everything and that's just not on, despite the fact that you were the ones who designed them in the first place.....

Can you please sit down and do this:

Define the problem with carriers (if there is one) Define what would be a better situation. Define what might get us to that point. Then post your ideas.

At the minute it looks like the whole dev team is flailing about in the dark.

I'd also suggest spending some time in carriers on TQ, you either have a very different experience to the majority of those who posted, or you don't have the experience at all.


ElvenLord
4S Corporation
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2007.10.24 11:14:00 - [327]
 

Edited by: ElvenLord on 24/10/2007 11:28:37
Edited by: ElvenLord on 24/10/2007 11:20:22
Edited by: ElvenLord on 24/10/2007 11:15:48
Originally by: CCP Oveur
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


This is a bit too much. Pls if you don't have a carrier pilot on TQ I will be glad to provide you with one, and I do invite you to join me and all of us in a REAL (not a sisi test) battle/op/whatever on TQ, so you can see for your self how do carriers actually work, so you could see that every carrier pilot (MS included) need to REFIT for every single task. If you are going to be logistics you need to fit for that (cap rec, remote reps .... ), if you are going to battle again the same thing REFITTING (sometimes we do it during the battle and I must say it is very complicated), if we need to haul stuff again REFITTING (and btw hauling in a carrier isn't cheep, and it is not done unless gain is much higher then the price of hauling and the risk).

just few examples:

1. Solo pwning. Solo carrier CAN'T kill a decently tanked BS or a command ship (been there done that, from both sides), unless a bs/CS pilot is utterly stupid. Same thing comes with smaller ships. Further explanation can be given if needed.

2. Assigning fighters, atm very complicated job for a carrier pilot and utterly useless. In current way the battles (where gangs chase one another all over the system), unless camping gates, fighters suck, cose by the time they get from place where gang was to a place where gang is fighting is in 90% cases over so no point on assigning them. Further more usually fighters are assigned to small ships cose of the locking time (since there is no point giving them to sniping BSes) and those ships DON'T attack targets that fighters can hit............ (many more examples)

3. Carriers/MS are never alone. You have to have at least a cyno gang mate. Any clues? YOU NEED A GANG so you can move. Carriers can do crap alone.

4. For every single task you have put as a reason WE HAVE TO REFIT.

5. And ofc famous thing called SP and ISK and for now I want go there.

..... many many many more point .....

Get you head out of the clouds for a moment and come back to earth pls. This kind of arrogance and disrespect to players is becoming just a little too much. You forget that a huge number of players here are, lets just say not young, and have at least a decent IQ as well as education and experience. Don't insult us.


Edit: oh yea I forgot 2 t1 dampeners on a noob ship or a frig if possible, and let him attack a carrier, and guess what .... CARRIER IS DEAD. Carrier alone = Dead carrier in any case

Zarch AlDain
GK inc.
Posted - 2007.10.24 11:15:00 - [328]
 

Originally by: CCP Zulupark


Where does it say in the blog that that's what we're doing?


It's a public relations issue - without wishing to be offensive the first dev blog was extremely poorly thought out and offered a massive nerf with no clear reasoning or explanation. You are now in a damage limitation situation and need to clearly and repeatedly say that the nerf as originally proposed will not under any situation happen before certain people will calm down and start looking at it rationally.

If the new blog had been the first one then I think you would find a much more positive reaction.

To respond on this blog: I actually quite like the idea of making carriers able to specialize more. HOWEVER in order for a nerf to their overall abilities to be accepted by people who (like myself) have spent a year training and billions of isk on getting one then you need to offer something more.

Vague 'it might be better at the specialization' aren't really good enough. It needs a more solid: Carriers will no longer be as good at generalist, but you can specialize them to be more effective at one thing than they are now.

Just off the top of my head here is a suggestion:

Change the +1 drone controlled for carriers and +3 for motherships to +100% per level bonus on Carrier Upgrade Modules for carriers and +300% per level for mums.

Give all carriers and mums one more mid, low and high slot but remove the corporate hangers, maintanance array and massively reduce the drone bay (and as already said the drone control bonus).

Ok, so now you have a crippled carrier - but now you add a number of new modules, these are all Carrier Upgrade Modules so the bonus when fitted will be somewhere between 1 and 5 (or 1 and 15 for Moms) times the one listed on the modules:

High slot:

Bandwidth Enhancer: +1 control capacity
Fighter Control Unit: +1 controlled fighter (to maximum control capacity of ship)
Drone Control Unit: +1 controlled drone (to maximum control capacity of ship)

The carrier would have a control capacity of 5, assuming carrier skill 4 adding a bandwidth enhancer would allow you to launch 4 extra drones - but you would still be limited to 5 fighters and/or 5 drones.

Adding both a bandwidth enhancer and a fighter control unit would let you launch 9 fighters or up to 5 drones complimented by fighters. Adding a drone control unit would allow 9 drones or up to 5 fighters complimented by drones.

This puts carriers roughly where they are now in terms of drones controlled, except that they lose a bit of flexibility unless they use a high slot.

BUT they can fit multiple, so by using 2 bandwidth enhancers and a fighter control unit they would be able to launch 9 fighters and 4 drones. 2 of each would be 13 fighters, etc. With this carriers would be able to potentially achieve far more launcher fighters than they currently can, but only by dedicating high slots to it.

Mid slot:

Maintanance array: 100,000m3 of maint bay
Corporate hanger: 2000m3 of corporate hanger

With the extra mid slot carriers can fit extra tank/cap recharge/tackling/whatever - but with the loss of a corporate hanger and maint array. Fitting two of these and they start losing from their current situation, but again they can actually get better. For example a hauling Thanatos might put 6 corporate hangers in its mid slots and get 48000m3 of corporate hanger. A ship transporter might put in 6 maint bays and get a mammoth 2400000m3.

Low slot:

Drone bay: 20000m3 of drone capacity


Conclusion:
Take a carrier, put a bandwidth enhancer, maint array and drone bay in the extra high, mid and low and you are similar to a current carrier but a bit weaker (only 5 fighters at a time, no hanger array) - however you can focus yourself in one area to become extremely good at it.

6 high slots on a thanatos would allow 3 bandwidth enhancers and 3 fighter control units - that would allow with carrier 4 17 fighters to be launched - but with no high slots left.

Apoc77
Federation of Synthetic Persons
STYX.
Posted - 2007.10.24 11:20:00 - [329]
 

It looks like CCP is finally reacting on what we, the players experienced by using carriers/motherships for months/years now. I still got serious doubts this will turn out in any way i like.
Still i think you got to work on your focus! Is there a real need to 'fix' carrier/MS? No! This is a problem created from where no problem is.
CCP your game has tons of construction sites where you should put your focus on. When you got to keep your employees busy, go and let em a have a week or two in the bug hunting batallion. In general you're creating content faster than you're able to fix the bugs of the last content patch(es). You got crazy ideas like "walking on stations". Is there anybody out there who wants this? Not to talk about the necessity. I'm flying a mothership myself and i'm glad i dont have to see stations from the inside again. Seriously: EVE simply is a spacegame...i wanna see stars, nebulas enourmous fleet battles. Thats what eve is about. Not about walking on stations.
Now Trinity is about to hit us soonish. What do we get: Tons of new ships(Black Ops - sounds like the ship for the frustrated carrierpilot to go for - skillwise at least), bandwith(making drone-capabilities dependent on 2 parameters? GL on balancing - You'll need it!), new killmail system(pls let me see the whole mail ingame again) and much other stuff. The graphic engine(also called trinity) is your general answer when sombody asks about performance improvements. We will see what it is capable of...

Conclusion: LESS CONTENT - MORE BUG HUNTING AND PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENTS pls pls pls

Apoc

Zarch AlDain
GK inc.
Posted - 2007.10.24 11:20:00 - [330]
 

Edited by: Zarch AlDain on 24/10/2007 11:27:26
Ran out of space just as I was nearly done :)

So to get an all out combat fighter carrier you would:

Put a couple of drone bays in the low slots, you would put fighter control units and bandwidth enhancers in the high...I deliberately made it so you need two modules as if you had it each 1 module gave you 5 more fighters you would see carriers with 30 odd fighters out.

To make a combat drone carrier you wouldn't need so many drone bays but you would have bandwidth enhancers and drone control units.


The hauling and ship transport carrier has already been discussed.


Another thing that might be nice to give some more options in the low slots is 'electronic hardening systems'. Only one could be fit but they would give a _limited_ electronic warfare resistance. For example 7km minimum locking range (would =35km with carrier 5), 100% sensor strength boost, 10mm minimum scan resolution (50 with carrier 5), 3 points of warp core stabilisation.

With one of these fitted it becomes much harder but still possible to lock down a carrier with electronic warfare.

Since that wouldn't help motherships they could get the option of 'energy hardening systems' (mothership only) which means their capacitor cannot be nossed or neutralized below 10% (50% for carrier 5).


Just a few ideas to get things started :)


Pages: first : previous : ... 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 ... : 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