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 : ... 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 ... : last (38)

Author Topic

Ardvaark Ratnik
Minmatar
Voice of the Blood Acquirers
Posted - 2007.10.24 11:21:00 - [331]
 

Quote:
One of the big differences between this blog and the first one is that we're now focused on providing you with a series of choices to make when it comes time to take your ships out. This has nothing to do with comparing what a carrier can do against a single battleship or whatever. What we're talking about is entirely different.


Basically you are giving us the choice to "take it in the Rear, or take it up front" as you are raping us anyhow and nothing is gonna change your minds so we might as well enjoy it.

I am royally ticked off over the whole idea that carriers need any type of nerf, as pages and pages of constructive replies have shown they don't need it. You guys obviously don't fly a carrier and have absolutely no clue about them.

El'jonson
Posted - 2007.10.24 11:23:00 - [332]
 

I like the modula carrier idea as long as by specialising our carriers in one area we gain abilities above what it is now...

Combat we lose most corp and ship bay but gain damage, tank and resistence to ew.

logistics can use 5 fighters the drone bay is reduced and maybe can jump furthur carry more etc

Would like to see different types of fighters if I can't field normal drones maybe an intercepter style one 4 killing faster moving stuff and maybe a torpedo bomber 4 killing bigger stuff (could b fun with citahdel torps and making them come back to reload) and maybe a fighter type that reps shield,armor and hull ? also a ew fighter that when attacking does a bit damp and ecm or if assigned to guard a friend boosts it sensors (could b quite useful).


Okkie2
Posted - 2007.10.24 11:25:00 - [333]
 

[
# Fighting off any kind of foe, small or big. Most have a set of fighters and a lot of normal drones in their drone bay. This means they can choose drones / fighters based on their enemy's size, choose their damage type and even be quite effective jammers using ewar drones.

This is a problem for MOMs because they are immune to EW. A carrier will most probably be dampened to 5-6 km and not be able to use his drones properly. The drones won't all select the same target and also won't go after the right size target. In the end this means all drones can be easily killed without any real threat.

# Great logistics ships - They've got plenty of capacitor to be very effective logistics ships using capital sized logistic modules. Triage mode can be very effective in small scale fleet combat when applied correctly.

They are pretty good logistics ships in small warfare, but for carriers this is greatly reduced when they are dampened.
Triage mode just doesn't work, not even in small warfare. You either use it if you are 100% sure you will win (np in having to be in that mode for 10 mins, and you might be able to keep some more of your friends alive) or you use it when you are 100% sure you are loosing and you can't get out (to maximize the time you live and maybe you can might take some of the hostiles with you)

# Jump capable haulers - Although not an intended role, they're currently being used as jump capable haulers, which is probably the safest way to transport stuff from empire space to 0.0 and vice versa.

I might hope that once we have the jumpdrive freighters, those will be a lot better at this, rendering the carrier useless for this role.

# Excellent support ships - They can bring ships and modules behind enemy lines, are capable of fighter delegation and able to help damage-wise with minimal exposure to the enemy.

That's exactly one of its intended roles.

# Damage dealing (Small scale PVP, Capital PVP, Starbase Warfare)
Damage dealing is fun for small/capital/starbase warfare, but 1 carrier only adds 1 BS worth of damage so not really a big deal for a 1-2 bil ship.

# Logistics (Small scale PVP, Capital PVP, Starbase Warfare)
# 0.0 Transporting
# POS fueling
I might hope the new jumpdrive freighter will be a lot better at these things rendering the carrier pretty useless in the transporting role.

# Support (as in bringing along spare modules and ships behind enemy lines)
That's exactly what a carrier is for Very Happy

# PvE (Ratting, missions, complexes etc.)
Big tank, BS damage so this might be a problem as this is not the intended use of a carrier. Otoh a lot of carriers are killed while doing this so i'm not sure if this is a problem.

* Increase teamplay and make the low skillpoint, non-capital pilots more valuable in fleet combat
* 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"

Most carrier/MOM pilot will not give control of a few hundred mils to a low skillpoint (thus not experienced) pilot.

* We definitely don't want Carriers to be parked at starbases, they should be at the front lines keeping their gang mates alive.

So don't have them delegate there fighters. Usually the main reason a carrier is on the frontline is because he wants to control his own drones. Furthermore they should not be completely rendered useless by a 2 sensordamper fitted frig. So something has to change for that.


The proposed changes (fitting for the desired role) sounds good to me, but don't forget what you want the ship to do and make sure it's good at it. So make sure with the changes the carrier will be at it's best on the frontline and at it's worst on a SS/POS. And not to forget don't look to much at the hauling (goods) capabilities of it (or just nerf it). That's the new freighter role and a carrier should be a lot worse at.

Louis DelaBlanche
An Outlying Variable
Posted - 2007.10.24 11:27:00 - [334]
 

Personally, I wish carriers & motherships had roles like their names implied. Carriers are mobile air strips & so their offensive (not defencive) capabilities with fighters & drones should be their main priority. Motherships, being in my mind mobile service stations/hotels should prioritise that.

Currently, motherships & carriers perform multiple roles, but none of them to the extent that removing the others would still make them preferable for doing what remains. Theyre not, & tbh never have been the swiss army knife pwnmobiles this blog implies they are. Maybe on paper but not in Tranquility.

I do wonder though, whether the day will come when motherships will ever be a realistic option for those of us who dont have alts to be imprisioned in them? As has been said many times already motherships as is are just expensive carriers. This change will further relegate them to the low sec smartbombboats they have been increasingly becoming of late. Treating both carriers & motherships as the same ship class is leading to ms becoming irrelavent in 0.0 PvP.

ArmyOfMe
Hysera.
Posted - 2007.10.24 11:27:00 - [335]
 

Originally by: Xune
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 dayīs in one you would have already realysed thats pretty much crap.

A single carrier or for that matter 2-3 carriers togheter isnt overpowerd at all, i 100% agree there.

The problem first comes when you have a fleet of carriers with turtle tanks wich makes them impossible to kill, even i can see that there is a problem there

Blood Ghost
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2007.10.24 11:29:00 - [336]
 

Well TBH I donít think the changes will do anything like the devs expect:


If there an all out damage option vs. battleships, well thatís the option for fleet fights. Until you change the way logistics and fleet combat works there is just NO reason to fit for remote repair. The only reason most people fit remote repairs at the moment is for other capitals ships. You can increase lock speed, boost amount etc but in a large fleet fight, anything but a capital ship is dead before you can boost it.


Just look at why triage isnít used at the moment!!


Could you just abandon the idea and swap to fixing bombers already?

MOS DEF
0utbreak
Posted - 2007.10.24 11:29:00 - [337]
 

Let me sum this up quick.
New dev had a stupid idea.
Community goes nuts.
Scratch that idea and waste tons of manhours to make carriers and motherships the same as now besides that they have to refit some useless mods for the purpose they are used for.

Result: Wasted manhours on the dev team that could be invested into something more useful.

And you still constantly ignore the call for evidence. What makes the carriers unbalanced. I still cannot see any killboards showing any carrier solokilling stuff. That's funny because there is a lot of other different ships where you could provide such evidence quick.
You keep arguing but you still haven't come up with why they deserve the nerf. In realitzy carriers are very vulnerable and easy to take dow but of course you cannot admit that anymore now.

In your dev blogs you simply state it as a fact that carriers are so overpowered. Funny since the actual game reality is different.

ElvenLord
4S Corporation
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2007.10.24 11:32:00 - [338]
 

Edited by: ElvenLord on 24/10/2007 11:32:45
Originally by: MOS DEF
Let me sum this up quick.
New dev had a stupid idea.
Community goes nuts.
Scratch that idea and waste tons of manhours to make carriers and motherships the same as now besides that they have to refit some useless mods for the purpose they are used for.

Result: Wasted manhours on the dev team that could be invested into something more useful.

And you still constantly ignore the call for evidence. What makes the carriers unbalanced. I still cannot see any killboards showing any carrier solokilling stuff. That's funny because there is a lot of other different ships where you could provide such evidence quick.
You keep arguing but you still haven't come up with why they deserve the nerf. In realitzy carriers are very vulnerable and easy to take dow but of course you cannot admit that anymore now.

In your dev blogs you simply state it as a fact that carriers are so overpowered. Funny since the actual game reality is different.



for ones they should maybe browse Killboards a little, it want hurt them much (if we don't take ego in to count :P )

000Hunter000
Gallente
Missiles 'R' Us
Posted - 2007.10.24 11:32:00 - [339]
 

This devblog = lose, are u guys really that clueless? (i think u allready answered this, so nm)

happy fanfest, i hope u have lots of security running around Laughing

WTS: 1 chimera carrier, 15 fighters and about 100 or so assorted drones and and fitting, contact me ingame.

Khes
Posted - 2007.10.24 11:36:00 - [340]
 

Edited by: Khes on 24/10/2007 11:36:57
I think CCP has some very good points in this matter, and I would welcome a change that specializes the mothership and carriers roles.

DTee
The Collective
Against ALL Authorities
Posted - 2007.10.24 11:39:00 - [341]
 

Edited by: DTee on 24/10/2007 11:46:41

I think to make a mothership what it should be (a hotel docking station) the mini-pos shield carryng out maintenance idea is probably th best I've heard so far. That would make them just more then a fighter swarming end game ship. They could fit specifically for on grid support!

This also helped those pod jumping to the mothership to jump in to their ships within the shield.

Ima Nutta
Body Count Inc.
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2007.10.24 11:39:00 - [342]
 

Replying to the latest blog seems to be pointless...but here goes anyway.

CCP, ffs get off SISI and go fly carriers on TQ some time. You all claim the need to play the game along side us "paying" customers to get the full feel for what we want. Well, this might come as a shock but a) you don't appear to realise that carriers are NOT the all singing, all dancing OMGWTFBBQPWNMOBILE and b) your "paying" customers clearly don't want a nerf, of any sort, to carriers.

If it's so important, in your estimation, to go ahead with a nerf of some sort (any nerf, just gotta get the bat out!) then why is this only just becoming an issue now? Why not 12 months ago? Why not after MS's were first released and people started camping low sec gates in them???

Seriously, you guys are sounding more like politicians in an election year than dev's. Who are you really trying to please? What's the real agenda here? Maybe it's trying to fix lag by nerf? How about fixing lag by installing better hardware and comms equipment?

At the moment, any ship, large or small, with sensor damps is a BIG threat to a carrier. Most gangs, small or large, will have at least 1 to 3 ships fitted with at least 2 damps each. That's enough to tie up your average carrier for as long as you want, certainly long enough to get a few heavy hitters in to finish it off.

Telling us things like:

# Fighting off any kind of foe, small or big. Most have a set of fighters and a lot of normal drones in their drone bay. This means they can choose drones / fighters based on their enemy's size, choose their damage type and even be quite effective jammers using ewar drones.


is just plain wrong, and shows a level of ignorance and/or arrogance in the way you are approaching this whole issue.

So, CCP...please please please pull your collective heads out of the sand, talk to us (we know you're listening) and find out how people REALLY use their carriers.

Master OlavPancrazio
Empire Assault Corp
Dead Terrorists
Posted - 2007.10.24 11:43:00 - [343]
 

Can you please put a clone vat bay reduction into carriers. That would make them useful in another role!

Dupac
Subite
Posted - 2007.10.24 11:50:00 - [344]
 

Originally by: Khes
Edited by: Khes on 24/10/2007 11:36:57
I think CCP has some very good points in this matter, and I would welcome a change that specializes the mothership and carriers roles.


So rather than have the current position where you can perform all the roles to a reasonable level, you would rather have to pick and choose what you can do?

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense :(

Matthew
Caldari
BloodStar Technologies
Posted - 2007.10.24 11:50:00 - [345]
 

Originally by: velmistr Ecco
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.


Well, this gets into the difference between a corp as a bunch of individuals who just happen to hang around the same area and agree to shoot the same stuff, and a corp as a team.

Most of the high-end corp and alliance content is geared to work best, quite rightly, with this second type of corp in mind. In a team corp, the corp would have helped you get those fighters, and the carrier itself, in the first place. Just as you would have helped your support get whatever ships they're flying. You'd also be sharing the burden of losses, regardless of which individual in the team sustained the loss.

Originally by: DTee
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!


IIRC, this suggestion came up for the roqual as well. The problem with it is preventing it being used in places you really don't want it to be used in. E.g., how many can you overlap around a cyno jammer? What if you park one of these things on an acceleration gate to prevent people getting into a complex? Over a gate to prevent anyone jumping out? How about plonking one in front of a station undock to trap everyone inside.

It's a nice idea, but tricky to do in a non-abusable way.

Originally by: MOS DEF
I still cannot see any killboards showing any carrier solokilling stuff. That's funny because there is a lot of other different ships where you could provide such evidence quick.


Maybe because everyone else knows the power of the carrier, and choose not to engage it at all unless they're in a group large enough to do the job.

One of the characteristics of carriers solo is that they are relatively poor at forcing an engagement if the other person really wants to get away. Hence why you don't see many solo carrier kills where you would with other ship types. What you've shown is that carriers are not the best tacklers, not that they are balanced overall.

I've already commented on why killboards in general are a very poor indicator of balance.

Kagura Nikon
Minmatar
Emptiness.
Posted - 2007.10.24 11:53:00 - [346]
 

Ok this is for CCP as my point of view of the whoel problem and solution. Speaking as someone that have faces carrier blobs.

First, thanks for trying to adress the issue, and thanks for paying attention to community response.

On my point of view the main problem is the non killable state a carrier reaches when in a carrier blob. Put 10 carrier together for example, give a look at CAOD, a thread now ongoing about Triumvirate fighting 11 carrier. They quited the fight because 11 carriers remote repairing each other are non killable.


My suggestion would be. No more than 3 ships may be repairing the same target at the same time. That would prevent the absurd usage of this tactic to unhealthy limits.

In the PVP championship we could see remote repair being defeated by changing targets fast, but due to capital ships huge HP that is not feasible in capital fights. That is why I propose something to prevent a carrier blob form being non killable.


That combined with a rework on fighters would reach the deal. As a rework I think I have the same in mind as you. Some different fighters more suited to go agianst BC and BS and some more clumsy but with more firepower able to go for capitals only.

Hysidee
Warped Mining
Posted - 2007.10.24 11:53:00 - [347]
 

This is all crap, just like the last blog

THEY DO NOT NEED CHANGING!!!!

Seriously, what the hell is wrong with carriers the way they are now? They can kill stuff, while getting killed easily themselves, its perfectly fine balance!! Motherships arent exactly WTFPWN mobiles either, especially in 0.0 where 1 dictor or new heavy dictor can prove to be your worst nightmare.

If you dont want them to excell in everything, a few changes is easy, for one stop them being able to scoop ships with items in there cargo hold, that then instantly nerfs there hauling ability and act as a 0.0 transport ship, plus a jump freighter will make it redundant in this role anyways.

As for combat, they are balanced, carriers already have a hard time killing anything smaller than a bs with fighters, plus theres a simple counter to a carriers weapons called a "smart bomb". These "smart bombs" give us guys massive headaches aswell as making our wallets cry alot.

So in summary, changes to carriers combat etc not needed, just introduce ships like jump freighters that do the job better!!

Any changes do go through, my 5 accounts will be cancelled, it seems theres bad press created by this already, not a good image for this game really Sad

James Duar
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2007.10.24 11:54:00 - [348]
 

I've said it once, I'll say it again: area of effect logistics. Shield, Cap, Armor and Tracking mods which sit in the hi-slot of a carrier and provide boosts/bonuses to all ships within say, 10 km of the ship. Easily not overpowered by stacking nerfs to the effects themselves, and by ensuring that the effects don't affect capital class ships.

Lag-friendly. Click-friendly. Benefits to both fleet and small gangs. Would lead to new and interesting frontline uses of carriers (say, a tracking-boost carrier sitting with a sniper gang). AoE repair would prolong fleet engagements in a uniform and interesting way.

Attack Dog
Caldari
Best Path Inc.
Posted - 2007.10.24 11:54:00 - [349]
 

Quote:
We definitely don't want Carriers to be parked at starbases,

tbh it sounds like you want to have your cake and eat it to

heres a couple of ideas

1) give carriers a 50% bonus per level to the damage of its drones and hitpoints when controlled by the carreir

2) keep everything the same BUT when a carrier launches and controls more than 5 drones disalble the abbility to access the ship maint bay, or only allow the carreir to control its full compliment of drones if the ship maint bay is empty.

and can we plz get some more concret details, not just, forcast for today, large chance of a nerf storm sometime in the next 3-5 months

AD

Kagura Nikon
Minmatar
Emptiness.
Posted - 2007.10.24 11:55:00 - [350]
 

Originally by: Dupac
Originally by: Khes
Edited by: Khes on 24/10/2007 11:36:57
I think CCP has some very good points in this matter, and I would welcome a change that specializes the mothership and carriers roles.


So rather than have the current position where you can perform all the roles to a reasonable level, you would rather have to pick and choose what you can do?

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense :(


Why would not make sense? All other ships must do the same. You cannot for example fit a Battleship to be a sniper a heavy tanker and a nano ship at same time. You need to change setup every time you change role.

DTee
The Collective
Against ALL Authorities
Posted - 2007.10.24 11:56:00 - [351]
 

Edited by: DTee on 24/10/2007 11:58:59
Edited by: DTee on 24/10/2007 11:57:47
Originally by: Matthew
Originally by: velmistr Ecco
I

Originally by: DTee
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!


IIRC, this suggestion came up for the roqual as well. The problem with it is preventing it being used in places you really don't want it to be used in. E.g., how many can you overlap around a cyno jammer? What if you park one of these things on an acceleration gate to prevent people getting into a complex? Over a gate to prevent anyone jumping out? How about plonking one in front of a station undock to trap everyone inside.



Like a smartbomb, it cannot be deployed within a certain range 5000m of another structure. This includes stations, gates, acceleration gates. You can only deploy it around players.

Gawain Hill
Posted - 2007.10.24 11:56:00 - [352]
 

wow i see the same comment with every nerf except on this thread

"adapt or die"

if you don't like the changes to carriers then fly somethin else just cause you've spent years playing the game and have a carrier dosent mean your ship should never be changed get over it adapt or die...

Rosemary Pen
Posted - 2007.10.24 11:58:00 - [353]
 

Reading Though all this lot sounds to me like a few years ago when they changed drones from 15 to 5 on a drone boat anyone still complaing about only having 5 drones?

Not sure why people are complaining about them not being able to defend them selfs you can pick any set of drones you want and have lots to spare.. Does a Dread? err no does a dread cost more? err yes.. are they complaining they canrt defend them selfs errr NO!. you are a cap ship!!

There is no smaller ship that can solo you.. if you get a small gang jump of you then its your own fault for letting them... can a group of crusers take down Battleships? oo yea... you are only 1 size up from a BS and you complain when people use tatics on you.

Fighters are a pain in the arse at the min anyhow.. NO pos can destroy fighters yet they can kill the pos guns and cyno?.. If CCP think they need to change this then i am behind them.. they done a good job on the changes upto now.. and you can NOT say they havent because YOUR still playing eve!!

Helison
Gallente
Times of Ancar
Posted - 2007.10.24 12:00:00 - [354]
 

Originally by: CCP Zulupark

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.


Great, that you now started to discuss your ideas with us players.
I personally donīt see any advantage in releasing new modules for forcing a specialisation of carriers. I am personally already refitting my carrier for nearly every usage. In which way will carriers be less "uber", when they have to fit special modules for each usage? I think this will be more difficult to balance than carriers in the current state.
Please explicitly WHICH USAGE of carriers you donīt like. As long as we can refit the carrier on the next POS or even at the next friendly carrier, I donīt see any improvement to the status quo.

I personally would concentrate on the real balance problems with carriers, like low sec (specially moms) or killing small ships, which is still a bit easy.

Volker Lind
Amarr
Posted - 2007.10.24 12:00:00 - [355]
 

Originally by: James Duar
I've said it once, I'll say it again: area of effect logistics. Shield, Cap, Armor and Tracking mods which sit in the hi-slot of a carrier and provide boosts/bonuses to all ships within say, 10 km of the ship. Easily not overpowered by stacking nerfs to the effects themselves, and by ensuring that the effects don't affect capital class ships.

Lag-friendly. Click-friendly. Benefits to both fleet and small gangs. Would lead to new and interesting frontline uses of carriers (say, a tracking-boost carrier sitting with a sniper gang). AoE repair would prolong fleet engagements in a uniform and interesting way.


Excellent idea right here.

Tobias Sjodin
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2007.10.24 12:14:00 - [356]
 

Well, if you're going to make it so carriers can only do one thing at a time effectively. At least make it so they perform that role better than they do now.

Eg.

Logistics carrier: Increase the carrier's locking range by a lot, as to compensate for the love of dampeners. And give a bonus to remote repping etc. (eg. 80% cap reduction of it's use or something). While maintaining the current proposition for fighter assignment.

Close-quarters combat carrier: FC:s will tell their fleets to dampen and put ECM on the carriers in combat. This is something CCP seems to ignore. So in close-quarters combat, there already is enough cons for a carrier pilot. HOWEVER, multiple carriers used at the same spot do not have these same problems. So to prevent the "carrier blob", why not just make it so for close quarters combat, the carrier only can use either fighters, or regular drones (has to be decided prior to undocking somehow). They still can field their current fighters/drone amount as they want to, but has to choose one. And can no longer perform it's logistics role as well.

Carrier-hauler: Max cap-regen for multiple jumps, but disable the combat ability entirely. When set for performing "hauling", give it a bonus for jumping (as in using less fuel), but disable it's ability to use fighters and drones, and the ability to lock other targets. BUT, make it so a maxed out expanded carrier can carry -a lot-.

Matthew
Caldari
BloodStar Technologies
Posted - 2007.10.24 12:15:00 - [357]
 

Originally by: James Duar
I've said it once, I'll say it again: area of effect logistics. Shield, Cap, Armor and Tracking mods which sit in the hi-slot of a carrier and provide boosts/bonuses to all ships within say, 10 km of the ship. Easily not overpowered by stacking nerfs to the effects themselves, and by ensuring that the effects don't affect capital class ships.

Lag-friendly. Click-friendly. Benefits to both fleet and small gangs. Would lead to new and interesting frontline uses of carriers (say, a tracking-boost carrier sitting with a sniper gang). AoE repair would prolong fleet engagements in a uniform and interesting way.


The problem with that is that fights then become a game of how many people can you fit in a carriers repping bubble, and bumping out of the bubble would become a cheezy, but common tactic. While AoE weapons like bombs may help counter this, they would likely have to be rebalanced to cope with this scenario.

If you want to go down this route, I would be more inclined to go for a variation on the gang bonus mechanic. Give carriers a more powerful set of gang boost modules, but ones that require the gang members to be on the same grid as the ship holding them to realise the benefits.

Originally by: DTee
Like a smartbomb, it cannot be deployed within a certain range 5000m of another structure.


ok, that's a good start, though I'd say [radius of bubble]+[raduis of ship]+5km to guarantee no edge effects of the bubble's presence.

Would probably also need to apply the same condition to the presence of other ships in "bubble mode", to prevent an uber-overlapping-bubble-blob forming, or a group of carriers trapping a ship inside a wall of bubbles.

Would also have to consider what to do about hostile ships within the bubble's radius at the point of activation. If you had it working like the POS shields do, you're looking at the potential for massive bumpage irrespective of ship size. Would not be good having capital ships bouncing each other off the grid all over the place with this. But by the same token, leaving the hostiles within the bubble would defeat the point a bit.

Would probably need a complete re-tune of the physics effect to give something more like a "reverse tractor beam" effect, where the ship is pushed slowly and steadily out, rather than insta-bounced out at incredible speed.

Xilimyth Derlin
Federal Fleet System
Posted - 2007.10.24 12:15:00 - [358]
 

While I have concerns regarding the carrier situation (especially NOT knowing yet what modules are coming out to accomplish this balancing), at least it seems like a step in the right direction versus what the original blog suggested.

I mean, the number of constructed carriers quoted in statistic (whether they were flying or not) was staggering, but I'm just curious how many dreadnoughts and freighters were constructed now.

However, I can at least SEE (or in a rudimentary way understand) why you're doing this if that number is starting to grow disproportionate to the number of other capital ships. I mean, one of the best 'comebacks' on the forums lately has been "remove all ships but one frigate/rookie ship/etc" whenever it comes to balance issues. This seems to just be addressing that on the capital level to prevent "Capital/Carriers Online" from being born right?

Still have to swallow after a year of them being out, but something HAS to be vastly better about carriers if people are using them that much more over dreads and battleships. (I mean come now, barring some high end complexes and level 5s, do you really need to rat a -0.6 sec system with a carrier? Oh the things my CovOps has seen :/.

Trojanman190
D00M.
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2007.10.24 12:20:00 - [359]
 

At least CCP is agreeing that people took a LOT of time and recources to get their carriers... I agree that they do to much, but the whole "you can only control 5 fighters at a time" makes absolutely no sense. Just add more types of fighters and make them weaker against cruiser sized ships and below. Right now carriers are easy to take down... they aren't solo pwnmobiles and I think we may have convinced the devs of that. The whole "I need a wingman to use all my fighters" is pretty goofy. Those wingmen should be there to pick off the support that could pin the carrier, since the carrier can't do that itself.

To reduce the carriers roles, don't nerf the carrier... nerfing things is a bad idea when you can add something. People won't use the carrier for 0.0 hauling if a jump freighter exists that does the job MUCH better.

Worried about the damage that a carrier can do? Hey, how bout you make dreads NOT SUCK when they aren't in siege? Make them able to hit battlecruisers and battleships to some useful degree. Those things are combat machines, the only reason they aren't used is because they aren't useful for anything but sieges or killing capitals, and that just seems like a waste. A mega can pretty easily be setup for 1000 dps. Assuming that every shot fired from a naglfar hit, and citadel torps did their full damage, outside of siege mode, that naglfar only does about 1000 dps. I say 'only' because it's a DREAD. That seems awfully low for a 2 bil ship. And of course, its really only about 400 against a battleship, if that, since nothing will be hitting for much damage. People use carriers for the damage role because the fighters actually manage to eek out the 1000 dps since they can hit.

I don't see a problem with the carrier being capable of many different tasks, there just needs to be a ship that is better at each individual task.


Tangki
Posted - 2007.10.24 12:31:00 - [360]
 


HOW ABOUT YOU LISTEN TO THE EVE WORLD AND FIX LAG INSTEAD OF TOUCHING STUFF THAT IS NOT BROKEN.....

WISH I WAS GOING TO THE EVE MEET TO HAND CHAT YOU LOT

Originally by: CCP Abathur
Edited by: CCP Abathur on 24/10/2007 07:29:47

Good Morning All.

I realize that emotions are still running high so I'd like to point out a few things that might reassure some of you.

One of the big differences between this blog and the first one is that we're now focused on providing you with a series of choices to make when it comes time to take your ships out. This has nothing to do with comparing what a carrier can do against a single battleship or whatever. What we're talking about is entirely different.

We're looking at giving you the ability to specialize carriers and motherships in a way not really done before. We know that some of you have never even bothered to use your carriers for 'hauling'. We know that some of you just hop into them, jump to a cyno and want to rip things up. Well, you'll still be able to do that (perhaps in some ways better than before) but you will have to trade off something for it.

Perhaps you want your fighters to be able to do more damage to larger ships? Maybe hit that dread fleet with a little extra DPS, but at the cost of a smaller or no ship maintence array?

Perhaps you want to focus your carrier to be better able to repair other ships? Faster lock time? Improved repair amounts, but at the cost of offensive firepower?

Less fighter control and more tank on your ship? Modules that increase fighter durability in exchange for speed? Better tracking on fighters but less DPS?

These are just some of the ideas we are looking at. There will be advantages and there will be penalties. Nothing is set in stone but the intent is all about trade-offs and specialization. We're going to be looking at the fighters themselves as well, tweaking them and possibly adding new variations.

Your feedback is important to this process so please keep it coming. There are a lot of options that we intend to explore in order to provide you with the most important thing EVE has to offer - the power of choice. Cool


Pages: first : previous : ... 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 ... : 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