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

Author Topic

War Bear
Body Count Inc.
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:25:00 - [31]
 

Originally by: Baun
Originally by: Crovan

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



Holy-intelligent-post batman!

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


Crovan is definitely a voice of reason and a cool frood who really knows where his towel is at. I'm more of a mindset usually of "BEAR SMASH" so ... uh ... I think I'm going to avoid posting again for a bit before I get seriously annoyed with whats being proposed. I might end up shaving the eyebrows off of a few devs should they pass out drunk at fan fest. 0_o

BlackKnight1717
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:26:00 - [32]
 

I think CCP are realy lacking PVP experience in their decisions.

Carriers are very easily disabled by damps ect which can make a 1.3 bill isk asset on the battlefield do little to no dmg at all. Sure a carrier can BBQ a BS in a minute but a BS can BBQ a cruiser in a minute and a cruiser can BBQ a frigate in a minute.

Aerick Dawn
Gallente
Ixion Defence Systems
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:26:00 - [33]
 

Carriers are only the swiss army knife if you have other knives in the assembly(IE: Your gangmates)

Without your friends, your dead.


LordVodka
Earned In Blood
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:27:00 - [34]
 

As someone else pointed out whys the carrier getting nerfed, have you seen moros? what's the number's on its dps it's over 1000 dps with ogre II i know that. it can fit hobs or anything and take out frigs, fit expanders and move as much as a carrier. wait did I just say it did more drone dps then most carriers. Yes, yes i did. Theres better things to nerf, stay away from my carrier!

Cailais
Amarr
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:27:00 - [35]
 

Hmm. Interesting Dev Post, though I imagine many Carrier pilots are still very much on edge.

Ive put some ideas down which I think is a "best of both worlds" in that Carriers themselves change very little (in some regards they get better Very Happy), and its all about where they are on the "battlefield" that dictates their abilities / strengths.

Its here if anyone fancies to comment Sad.

C.


Baun
4S Corporation
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:27:00 - [36]
 

Originally by: CCP kieron
Carrier and Motherships were designed to be a combined effort among corporation members where they rely on the group, and be pretty much defenseless against small ship classes without support.


Hate to break it to you buddy, they already are.

You will NEVER see a solo carrier actively fighting ANYWHERE that lives long. The same holds true for motherships in 0.0.

Seriously, do you people play this game? I won't even deploy my Nyx on grid without another MS or 6-7 carriers in support in a CYNO-JAMMED SYSTEM. If I deploy even with that level of support in other systems I risk getting completely pwned while I sit and watch helplessly.

Wake up, and stop believing your own bull****.

Lord Eremet
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:28:00 - [37]
 

What a load of crap. Thank you CCP for failing to listen to your players and how we play it. It's even more obvious now then before that you don't play your own game any more. But I give you 2/10 for your try to save face with that blog. To bad it is incompetence written all over it.

Carriers the Swiss Army Knife of EVE??? I wish it was so, to bad you have to be a CCP DEV to actually believe it.


//Erem

Zurtur
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:28:00 - [38]
 

Originally by: LordVodka
As someone else pointed out whys the carrier getting nerfed, have you seen moros? what's the number's on its dps it's over 1000 dps with ogre II i know that. it can fit hobs or anything and take out frigs, fit expanders and move as much as a carrier. wait did I just say it did more drone dps then most carriers. Yes, yes i did. Theres better things to nerf, stay away from my carrier!


QFT?

Brka
H A V O C
Against ALL Authorities
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:29:00 - [39]
 

Edited by: Brka on 24/10/2007 01:31:49

I think the DEVs are out of touch with what a carrier actually does and how much impact it actually has in the game. Sure it's a jack of all trades but really I still can't hit a vagabond that can eat my fighters and I have to get out hornets to chase off those pesky frigs that my fighters can't hit. My carrier has a terrible lock time and repairing/charging seems to be hostile (figure that logic out, fixing ships is a hostile action - please no don't give me energy damn you!)

I still think you have thrown out the gauntlet of "we are changing it period but here we will add this and this to make the change less of a pill to swallow even though it isn't enough and surely still doesn't make sense."

Also if you haven't been on the other side of a 10-15 member tri gang or carrier gang jumping in on your carrier and blowing it to shreds, then I suggest you invite them to Sisi to give you a demonstration on how vulnerable a "solopwnmobile" carrier is that pirates in low sec.

Crovan is very right about what he says in his last paragraph. I still say leave it alone.

Skraeling Shortbus
Caldari
Final Agony
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:33:00 - [40]
 

Originally by: Elmicker

Issue an apology and get back to nerfing the sub-capital drone boats (and the moros) like you should be.


I was agreeing with you up till here. Well you should be happy though the eos, myrm and ishkur got salad tossed. Good thing i fly a domi.

Crovan
The Praxis Initiative
Sodalitas XX
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:34:00 - [41]
 

Originally by: Baun
Originally by: Crovan

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



Holy-intelligent-post batman!

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


lol get off my brainwave, Baun!

Arokan Manturi
Macabre Votum
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:35:00 - [42]
 

BAH i want these changes nowSad

Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:35:00 - [43]
 

LOL... I love these posts...
Quote:
Carriers are frequently attacked and destroyed by small to mid sized gangs.

Quote:
I still can't hit a vagabond that can eat my fighters and I have to get out hornets to chase off those pesky frigs that my fighters can't hit.

How is it that you guys seem to be missing the point that CCP wants it to be required that carriers have a support fleet. Not solo ships. Mid sized gangs can own a solo carrier. They can't own a carrier with a support fleet. Carriers can't do squat against frigs and vagas, but a support fleet can. They don't want it to be a solo ship. They say it right in the friggin' blog...
Quote:
Carrier and Motherships were designed to be a combined effort among corporation members where they rely on the group, and be pretty much defenseless against small ship classes without support.





Cadiz
Caldari
EXTERMINATUS.
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:36:00 - [44]
 

Remove the remote logistics bonuses of the current carriers. Add tier 2/second batch of tier 1 carriers that have (more substantial) bonuses to using capital remote logistics at expense of drone control bonuses.

Instead of watering down carriers terribly, why not just break them apart into more specialized subsects? Sure, extra art resources, etc. etc. etc., but the devs should know better than anybody that new ships make everybody excited.

Druadan
Syrus Speculations
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:36:00 - [45]
 

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

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

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

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

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

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


Absolutely. This man has the nail firmly knocked on the head.

This devblog is not an apology for the stupid idea, and it is not a retraction. It's a ''we're codefreezing in two days and won't be able to come up with an adequate bribe in time, so we're going to nerf you in three months instead.''

My accounts remain cancelled, paid up until December anyway, to see what ideas CCP come up with. A fighter/drone reduction is just unacceptable. If you must nerf carriers' abilities to fight smaller ships (I don't see why since they can't lock small ships for ****, get damped way too easily, and light drones are every large ship's defence against small ships anyway), then do it a good way, not a ship-breaking way. We made note in this thread of how easily small ships lock down carriers, but apparently CCP weren't reading.

I love the idea of specialising carriers, though. But it has to boost the specialisation and not just nerf whatever isn't in the specialisation. As it stands, carriers are not masters of all trades, or pwnmobiles, as the devs seem to think. Specialisation needs to make them a master of a trade. If I can specialise in damage so my fighters actually do some good damage, that's cool. If I can specialise in lolgistics so I can tank more and provide remote reps, that's cool. If I can specialise in logistics so I can haul stuff out to theatres of operation, that's cool. So long as I can refit these specialisations in stations as easily as switching a 'core'-style module, and not via WoW-style points-distribution as I attain more SP, specialisation seems like a great idea.

Kivva
Pator Tech School
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:37:00 - [46]
 

I have to agree that it seems very much like the devs have in fact never experienced carrier/mothership combat for themselves with these statements.

I'll not restate all the points already made, but truly carriers are far far far from the destroy all vessels you seem to portray them as.

A carrier actually does far less damage than a good number of vastly smaller and far less expensive ships. It can also be tanked with relative ease by most command ships (when fit by someone with intelligence) as well as many well fit battleships. Hell, you don't have to play to know that, simply do the maths (devs must flee from actual work) and it becomes readily apparent that your statements are way way off.

Additionally, I'd like to point out:

Its a CAPITAL SHIP. It SHOULD be able to incinerate a battleship. Just like a battleship can very easily incinerate a cruiser.

You wonder why you have the problem you do? I'll give you a hint, it has absolutely nothing to do with the ships themselves. The root of this and most other problems in the game right now boil down to the fact that Eve is basically economically broken.

Take a look in that direction if you really want answers to your current problems, and leave a perfectly good ship that most of us pilots have spent a year or more training for alone.

Cailais
Amarr
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:39:00 - [47]
 

Originally by: Lord Eremet
What a load of crap. Thank you CCP for failing to listen to your players and how we play it. It's even more obvious now then before that you don't play your own game any more. But I give you 2/10 for your try to save face with that blog. To bad it is incompetence written all over it.

Carriers the Swiss Army Knife of EVE??? I wish it was so, to bad you have to be a CCP DEV to actually believe it.


//Erem


Interesting comment, I vaguely recall a few months ago there being a flurry of posts demanding that Dev shouldn't play characters on TQ (some sort of sculdugery was implied iirc).....

C.





Mc Leech
The xDEATHx Squadron
Legion of xXDEATHXx
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:39:00 - [48]
 

Let me translate this post:

"We kinda read 60+ pages of everyone disagreeing with us, but we are Devs and we dont care about what you think. We are here to entertain ourself not our customers so we nerf completely random stuff that not a single person ever asked us to nerf. Therefor after "reading" all your responces we decided that we are right and you are all wrong and will neft stuff anyway. Have a good day."

Moraguth
Amarr
Paragon Fury
Cascade Imminent
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:43:00 - [49]
 

Originally by: CCP Nozh
Let's take a look at what Carriers and Motherships are currently capable of:

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.





This Dev is full of epic fail in the face.

  • Yes, I have all kinds of drones and fighters, no I can't fight off any kind of foe, small or big. Small stuff runs too fast; Big stuff tanks too well.

  • Great Logistics Ships - kinda true. The next sentence is the most blatant lie I've ever seen. Sure, I can solo tank any solo ship, no problem (unless it has a couple big neuts). But if I even THINK about using my remote reppers, my capacitor starts to look like a AAA Duracell trying to power a Hum-V. Triage mode? "applied correctly"??!?!?! I don't think Sisi counts as being applied correctly.

  • Jump capable haulers. Sure, but you pretty much have to gimp your emergency fuel stores, optional capital mods in the cargo bay, and ability to bring combat ships with you to do it. So yes, you HAVE to make that choice beforehand.

  • Excellent support ships - Absolutely. I have nothing negative, and only positive things to say about that.



Moral of my story: someone is completely out of touch with reality. If you want to relegate the carriers to more of a support role, there are ways to do it without taking away control of their own drones. I'd be more than happy to (re)post my ideas on this subject.

Sertan Deras
Gallente
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:44:00 - [50]
 

Edited by: Sertan Deras on 24/10/2007 01:47:26
How can you say Carriers are no more swiss army knife than a Battleship? No Battleship in the game can carry that kind of drone selection and still mount that amount of remote rep. I am not saying they are solo pwnmobiles, but they are VERY versatile, more versatile than any other ship I can think of, in terms of being able to change damage type, damage size, utility type, etc. without a refit.

I am not saying the devs are 100% right, but they are correct in the fact that Carriers have a huge flexibility advantage that no other ship gets without refitting. I think if this is done correctly, it could be a good change. As one poster earlier said, if Carriers are going to be forced to specialize via fitting, then each specialized role needs a boost. If they spec for DPS, they need to do more than they do now. If they spec for repping, they need to do it better than they do now, etc.

Edit: Also, why does everyone keep bringing up damps, as if Carriers are the only ship that is hurt by damps? Just because you can be damped doesn't change the Carriers ability to launch umpteen different types of drones in a single fight.

Xilimyth Derlin
Federal Fleet System
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:46:00 - [51]
 

Create an alternate carrier, the two focusing on different specializations and give all carrier pilots a one time 'at login' "Carrier Selection / Carrier Trade" screen? *shrugs*

suzy homemaker
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:47:00 - [52]
 

Leave the carrier its traditional role.

FORCE PROJECTION.

The fighters / drones define a carrier.

If the rest is too much make the mom more of the support logistics role.

Introduce other ships to do some of the roles like the hinted jump freighter.

Suzy

Crovan
The Praxis Initiative
Sodalitas XX
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:47:00 - [53]
 

Originally by: Vladimir Norkoff
LOL... I love these posts...
Quote:
Carriers are frequently attacked and destroyed by small to mid sized gangs.

Quote:
I still can't hit a vagabond that can eat my fighters and I have to get out hornets to chase off those pesky frigs that my fighters can't hit.

How is it that you guys seem to be missing the point that CCP wants it to be required that carriers have a support fleet. Not solo ships. Mid sized gangs can own a solo carrier. They can't own a carrier with a support fleet. Carriers can't do squat against frigs and vagas, but a support fleet can. They don't want it to be a solo ship. They say it right in the friggin' blog...
Quote:
Carrier and Motherships were designed to be a combined effort among corporation members where they rely on the group, and be pretty much defenseless against small ship classes without support.







The point is that the way the game is played already makes this a necessity. As Baun has said (never thought I'd see the day we were backing each other up), solo carriers anywhere and solo motherships in 0.0 attempting to pvp are asking for a sound ganking.

The swiss army knife argument has some limited relavence, but realize that to accomplish all those roles requires specialized fittings geared specifically for those purposes.

A frontline pvp carrier has smarties, neuts, webs, scrams, cap mods, and a tank. A lot will also have a single remote rep.

A hauling carrier will almost always be fit for capacitor optimization already, making it have a very tough time if attacked.

A remote repping fit carrier is going to have fewer high slots for things like smartbombs and neuts, making it more prone to getting tackled or bubbled.

For convenience sake, everywhere I have put the word "carrier" above can be substituted with "mothership" in most cases.

Specialization is a fine idea, but, as Baun and I have already stated, if you are going to do it, there needs to be an incentive for the customers to approve the idea, namely making the specializations work more effectively than they do at the moment. Say, for instance that a specially fit carrier could jump haul a battleship, but would have to lose slots, making it less effective in combat. I would be a happy camper, and would happily keep training toward a Thanatos, so long as I could switch out the modules and be equipped for front line combat just as easily.

In all fairness, the arguments from CCP have become a moving target. The last blog was concerned with the high damage output and ability of carriers to solo. Now, the player-made thread about what people use their carriers for has been used as a "swiss-army knife" argument. Which is it? Neither is true to the degree that CCP is claiming that it is, in my opinion. To me, it also reflects an alarming trend for CCP to listen to the forums as the impetus for ship changes as opposed to getting their hands dirty in TQ with the rest of us.

Seriously, hire on some real fleet pvpers part time with the confidentiality agreement and all that, whose only job would be to advise you on gameplay changes. You guys are busy, I understand that. Let those who play the game guide you through real, reasoned experience, not forum whining.

I really think some sort of dialog would be helpful here, since I still don't think we, the players, are seeing eye to eye with what you, the developers, believe the problem is that needs changing in the first place.

-Cro


Law Enforcer
Still Undecided
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:48:00 - [54]
 

have you guys ever thought about modules that change the carriers role?

only one module per carrier.

1) assault module. this module would increase a carriers damage but decrease fighter tracking dramatically. role: anti capital.
2) support module. remote repping is increased but fighter damage is decrease and the amount of fighters you can control is also decreased. role: medic.
3) blackops module. jumprange is increased and fuel consumption decreased but you can only field six fighters. role: long range support/covert operations.

these just some very flawed ideas I came up with on the spot but this is just another way you can get a carrier to specialize and not be a jack of all traits WITH OUT nerfing them to oblivion.

Lightof God
Caldari
Reikoku
IT Alliance
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:50:00 - [55]
 

allow me to say it simply CCP

YOU ARE NOT GETTING THE FRICKING POINT

your playerbase on the whole has said that carriers do not need to be nerfed in any way shape or form. The module slot system provides the limiting choice factor you desired NOW.

You can choose to have a good defense or you can choose to help you mates.

Carriers need no nerfing. NONE WHAT SO EVER. Go back to the drawing board from which this idea came and erase it, then burn that drawing board for it can no longer be the bearer of anything good. After you have done that take who ever thought of the idea and fire him, if it is multiple people fine fire the lot of them. If it was all 3 orignal designers FINE leave your own game cause you are ruining and poisining it.

Acacia Everto
INTERNET HARBLRAGE
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:53:00 - [56]
 

Edited by: Acacia Everto on 24/10/2007 02:05:30
In my opinion, Carriers are already vulnerable to small ships. It may be able to send a hoarde of Warrior IIs at a 'ceptor and destroy it with impunity, but it can't do jack against a BC/Cruiser/Frig/BS/Dread/anything with a Maulus or its new T2 EWAR frig brother around. I'd say that their vulnerability to EWAR is a massive drawback. If anything, Carriers need a buff. Maybe Motherships are overpowered with their EWAR invulnerability, but not carriers.

Lets look at your cited examples.

-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.

-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.

-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.

-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.


Fighting off any opponent. You can easily be prevented from fighting off ANY opponent with a frig that has a few damps mounted.

Great logistics ships. Again, if you're jammed/damped to a 10km lock range and/or 180 second locks, you'll either be unable to lock gang mates or be too late to help anyways.

Jump capable haulers. I don't deny this, but being as you're introducing a jump freighter, this should be covered.

Excellent support ships. Intended use, right? Your new changes boost this. This functionality is and should be critical to a Carrier. This is the one ability which doesn't change.

So, the other two uses cited by you can be removed by EWAR easily. If the opposing gang doesn't lock you down, a Carrier should be able to strike out with force against its foes, small or big.

Ratting/PvE - You brought this on yourself with the introduction of level 5s. I sure as hell wouldn't rat in mine though. Maybe I'd assign fighters for this task. But then, that's working together being a support ship, right? Laughing

POS fueling - Give us a better way we said. You did. Cross this out.

0.0 Transporting - Still useful, but the jump freighter will be used much more in this regard. I can only really see moving small quantites of modules or a new ship for a friend/myself.


Thank you though CCP for reevaluating the situation and changing your mind. We'll see you in 3-6 months to debate the finer points of your next idea. Very Happy

Though, if you're going to make us sacrifice our use, you're going to have to sacrifice the vulnerability of carriers as it is.

Z'kario
Dirty Deeds Corp.
Axiom Empire
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:55:00 - [57]
 

so 3 200k isk frigs dampening a 2 bil isk carrier to the point it can't defend itself is not good enough. Have you ever sat there for an hour watching your carrier die to a gang of 20 frigs? I was in the frig gang killing the carrier, and tbh he should have been able to kill every single one of us. Carriers are busted as it is. A ship that expensive should be able defend itself against frigs, but sadly it can't. Carriers aren't the solo wtfpwnmobiles you think they are. Leave them alone.

Roemy Schneider
Vanishing Point.
Posted - 2007.10.24 01:57:00 - [58]
 

more ship-bay...?
just when i got acquainted to the idea of using a rorqual as transport =(

Galldar
The Python Cartel.
The Jerk Cartel
Posted - 2007.10.24 02:00:00 - [59]
 

Over powered to smaller ships? 1 t1 frig with damps can disable the only offence a carrier has.

That was the longest "NO, we will do what we want with our game and screw you" I've ever read.

An overwhelming majority of eve has spoken here on the forums and you still fail to listen....leave the carriers alone. They are fine. Don't break whats not broken.

Sonos SAGD
Black Eclipse Corp
Band of Brothers
Posted - 2007.10.24 02:01:00 - [60]
 

First of all thank you for explaining better on why you feel this is needed.


at the same time i think that you feel that your original idea is still the idea that you want


a good soultion might just be to limit the number of drones while keeping the fighters as they are

fighters already have a hard time hitting small stuff so in order to kill these you will needed surport. and with the new ew frigs you can ecm, and damp a carrier to less than a frig.


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

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only