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 : ... 21 22 23 24 [25] 26 27 28 29 ... : last (38)

Author Topic

Tiny Carlos
Posted - 2007.10.25 15:57:00 - [721]
 

Quote:
Even if down the line we see a gang of say 100 carriers and a dictor...you know what'll happen? Someone like BoB will form a conventional fleet and go kill them.


I think we'd be getting a bigger gang of caps TBH, you'd get whiped out taking on a 100 carriers in a coventional fleet.

Fenderson
Posted - 2007.10.25 15:59:00 - [722]
 

i dont like the original nerf idea form the first devblog, but i do think carriers need a bit of rebalancing. instead of relying on gang mates to help field their fighters, they should rely more on gang mates to protect them from smaller ships.

the best thing IMO would be to limit carriers to 5 regular drones (thats regular drones, not fighters) and also change the tracking and/or signature resolution on fighters so that they have a really hard time killing anything faster/smaller than a battleship.

easiest change would be to increase sig resolution on fighters to around 400m and change the carrier skill bonus and drone control unit bonus to only affect fighters.

they should still be able to field a lot of fighters, but should have a really hard time defending against smaller ships without support.

an alternate, slightly less "nerfy" idea would be to make different kinds of fighters that are better against different ship classes/sizes, so that the carrier pilot would have to chose what kind of ships he wants to be effective against before undocking.

i also like the idea of forcing them to fit a module in order to use the other special services of the carrier (corp hangar, ship maintenance bay).

Sarah Aubry
Caldari
School of Applied Knowledge
Posted - 2007.10.25 16:04:00 - [723]
 

Where to begin...

It saddens me to read this thread, the community which I thought made eve so great is appearing to be a bunch of childish spoiled brats.

The way in which many of you are disrespecting the developers as if they were your doormat is disgusting.

If you so high and mighty masters of eve know so much about games and balance why don't you go and make your own game?


CCP is in charge of EVE, you and your alliance, your friends, no matter how numerous are not. Even as a paying customer you have no rights here, you can make no demands. Your choice is to pay and play or not.

CCP are so gracious as to welcome your feedback and many of you insult and ridicule them.

The majority of complaints in this thread have already been answered! Allow me to try and assist those of you who cannot read normal text:

Carriers are not being turned into haulers

CCP are working on lag solutions - this has nothing to do with them

Our years of skill points will not be wasted

Please show some respect and think before you post. Remember, these are only ideas currently, none of them have gone live on TQ!

The Economist
Logically Consistent
Posted - 2007.10.25 16:05:00 - [724]
 

Originally by: Tiny Carlos
Quote:
Even if down the line we see a gang of say 100 carriers and a dictor...you know what'll happen? Someone like BoB will form a conventional fleet and go kill them.


I think we'd be getting a bigger gang of caps TBH, you'd get whiped out taking on a 100 carriers in a coventional fleet.


Sure you could take a fleet of caps, risk getting jumped by the enemy adding a support fleet to their caps, slug it out at point blank etc...

Or you could just have dictors doing flybys on the caps, frigs/recons/cruisers cycle dampening and a sniper fleet killing them from 201km away, pointing and laughing; minimal risk, minimal losses.

I know what I'd be doing.

The Economist
Logically Consistent
Posted - 2007.10.25 16:09:00 - [725]
 

Originally by: Fenderson
they should rely more on gang mates to protect them from smaller ships.


What? As opposed to now when anything more than a 1v1 vs a smaller ship results in a dead carrier?

Yeah clearly carriers are overpowered when it comes to solo self-defence.

Rolling Eyes

Seriously, a carrier without gang-mates to, as you put it, "protect them from smaller ships", is nothing but a wreck full of loot.

aiyoni
Posted - 2007.10.25 16:18:00 - [726]
 

After reading both blogs and a selection of posts I noticed the most powerful feature of carriers was not mentioned. An ability which truly makes it the swiss army knife of eve. A group of carriers can use each other for reconfiguring their fit. One minute they can be repairing a pos fitted for max cap and repairers. The next minute they can be heavily tanked smart bombing drone lords. All without the need for finding and docking in a friendly station with a working fitting service. That in my book deservedly gives carriers the 'uber swiss army knife' award.

Lazuran
Gallente
Aliastra
Posted - 2007.10.25 16:21:00 - [727]
 

Originally by: Sarah Aubry
Where to begin...

It saddens me to read this thread, the community which I thought made eve so great is appearing to be a bunch of childish spoiled brats.




What an original idea, to begin a complaint about people's behavior with insults. That will surely put you in a position to arge about good or bad behavior.

Now go back to where you came from, Mr. unconstructive fanboi.

Xilimyth Derlin
Federal Fleet System
Posted - 2007.10.25 16:25:00 - [728]
 

Edited by: Xilimyth Derlin on 25/10/2007 16:26:22
Originally by: Lazuran
Originally by: Sarah Aubry
Where to begin...

It saddens me to read this thread, the community which I thought made eve so great is appearing to be a bunch of childish spoiled brats.




What an original idea, to begin a complaint about people's behavior with insults. That will surely put you in a position to arge about good or bad behavior.

Now go back to where you came from, Mr. unconstructive fanboi.



While I disagree with the closed-minded outlook on a lot of the carrier pilots, it is abit low to start mud-slinging :/. I mean, some of the people for this are making similar comments to their end as well right? I mean, some of the posts 100% for it are just "YES... AWESOME IDEA. NERF EM TO *censored*". There's bad on both sides, but most ARE being relatively mature about it.

EDIT: Despite this fracture in the community.... it STILL is one of the best, most mature MMO communities I've been in.

BTW: Nerf Necros ^_^ (Sorry, bad joke)

Fenderson
Posted - 2007.10.25 16:27:00 - [729]
 

Originally by: The Economist
Originally by: Fenderson
they should rely more on gang mates to protect them from smaller ships.


What? As opposed to now when anything more than a 1v1 vs a smaller ship results in a dead carrier?

Yeah clearly carriers are overpowered when it comes to solo self-defence.

Rolling Eyes

Seriously, a carrier without gang-mates to, as you put it, "protect them from smaller ships", is nothing but a wreck full of loot.


i was more thinking about fleet defense than solo defense.

right now you simply cannot attack a blob of carriers with a blob of smaller ships because the smaller ships totally lose their advantage when the lag kicks in. this would be mitigated a bit if carriers were nerfed against smaller ships.

Reatu Krentor
Minmatar
Void Spiders
Fate Weavers
Posted - 2007.10.25 16:27:00 - [730]
 

Originally by: CCP Abathur

The best response I can give to this is that change does not equal 'nerf'. In fact, if you consider some of the wording of this blog and our responses it might come to light that these changes might actually put you in a ship you would be happier with. We're looking to offer you new and different options that do not currently exist.

Look at your run of the mill battleship. You can fit for close range, long range, gank or tank, build a NOS Boat, etc... In many ways, Carriers are quite boring in terms of how you can set them up. Carriers really have only one 'weapon / gun' and that's their fighters. Of course you can use drones, but if you could do more with your fighters or configure your carrier / mothership more specifically would you still load up 100 spare heavy drones? The fighters have no variation, you have no ability to tweak them and they only come in one flavor. We want to look at that.

As for the ships, carrier pilots use their ships in many ways and not everyone uses every ability carriers currently have. Some PvP addicts forget they even have a Ship Maitenence Array and the thought of putting on more than one remote rep is crazy talk. Other pilots see their carrier as their 'home', using it to do everything from fueling a personal starbase to shifting ships from one end of EVE to the other.

What if you could focus your carrier to do any of these tasks better than today by giving up a function you use much less? That is what we are looking into.

Options. Choice. Trade offs. Just like every other ship in EVE.

As I said before - think of it not as a nerf, but an evolution of the carrier concept.


Yes, the new dev blog does hint at giving carrier pilots a choice how to use their carrier(granted right now we don't have quite as much options as a bs, though I wonder how can you call a carrier jack-of-all-trades and then go ahead and say the opposite?), but the first one didn't. The first carrier blog only nerfed carriers by as was said by Oveur(I think) "devs making the choice for us".
I'm happy the design team realised that that was the wrong way to go.
You have redeemed yourselves in my eyes. Hopefully that will still be the case in 3 months time.
Also, hopefully a good lesson was learned that a small devblog about big changes does not work. Big changes need big explanations and clarification.

Trent Nichols
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
Posted - 2007.10.25 16:41:00 - [731]
 

Edited by: Trent Nichols on 25/10/2007 16:43:31
@ Aubry

Hand me a $20 mil grant and Ill get right on that game.

You have to remember that Eve is a subscription based game. Many of CCPs players have put hundreds of dollars and untold numbers of hours into this game. They have a very real investment in these ships that might become giant doorstops. Sure the feedback from the player base has been nasty. Ive seen nothing like it since I began playing but I think CCP deserves it in this case. The vast majority of their player base is against the change as outlined in the first blog and yet CCP has said nothing that to indicate clearly that they are backing away from the changes that players are most strongly opposed to.

"Carriers are not being turned into haulers
CCP are working on lag solutions - this has nothing to do with them
Our years of skill points will not be wasted"

Oh really? I must have missed the dev posts that contain something more than reassurances that ring hollow in the ears of players who are beginning to doubt CCP as a whole given their handling of this and other recent nerfs (you know the ones).

The lag is brought up because everyone is complaining about it but we have not seen anything done. Few people were complaining about carriers.

Finally, I do like to see that CCP is reading our posts and responding. I would just like to see more evidence that they really hear and understand what we are saying.


cardGames
Posted - 2007.10.25 16:43:00 - [732]
 

Edited by: cardGames on 25/10/2007 16:44:40
ok ccp... im gonna break carriers down for you and show you how to stop them and you will see they are fine how they are and dont need to be "fixed"

1. Remote repair, Its cap heavy you cant use to to much or it will kill your cap with or without logistics mod. Without the mod you can stop this with 1 arazu for the most part

2. jump hauling - this will be fixed when the new jump frieghtors are introduced aslong as you give these new ships a decent jump range

3. damage dealing - As far as fighters go they have a hard time hitting battleships and capital ships. cruisers shouldnt get hit by them unless their target painted and webbed. Also heavy/medium/light drones that carriers have alot of have a hard time vs smaller then say Battlecruiser targets, Why? because of locktime AND because unless the carrier has a decent support fleet thats working with the carrier the carrier would need to sacrifice another slot to a warp disrupter. So thats 2 slots atleast the carrier doesnt have for recharge and again 1 or 2 damp ships or jammer ships can SHUT DOWN A CARRIER SO IT CANT DO ANYTHING So a carrier on its own isnt a solopwnmobile if the people fighting it have even the slightest clue.

4. Ratting in belts/complex/etc.. Well we seen how well its going for the people that have done it i think atleast 2 mom's went down trying to do this who knows how many carriers... ratting in a carrier is a bit over kill isnt it ?

5. Now if you have a problem with lag then i got some news... most fleet battles that i have been in that where lagging didnt have carriers... it was just to many people for the server to handle. But if you must use this as a reason then heres how you fix it.. give like a 200% damage bonus on all carriers to ALL drone damage. Yes all fighters/heavys/mediums/lights then when the carrier only has 5 drones them drones are hitting like they were 15..


6. if your trying to stop mom's ganking in low sec, here is the quickest way to fix it. Eaither moms cant launch drones around stargates or if they go near a stargate the magnetic force's from it cause it to lose its immunity to EW but only in .4 to .1 (so their still 100% immune in 0.0 accept for warp bubbles)


inclosing a normal carrier wont beable to do anything to a fleet thats got half a brain They can be damped scrambled jammed nos/neut'd and unlike mom's they dont have 10million drones in them so people can kill their drones off too! so please play your game and understand how they work before you start looking for the nerf batRolling Eyes


Edit: Spelling

Wodanonline
Amarr
Pringles Inc.
No Comment.
Posted - 2007.10.25 17:04:00 - [733]
 

you almost make it sound like you made a terrible mistake introducing capital ships to this game.

i think what most ppl tried to point out and myself to is that you have to train long for this ship and gather alot of isk to obtain one and fit it that we expect it to be at least what you somehow now do not expect it to be.

i have read your full blog and saw all your points and i couldnt help laughing about it.
because all your points have been proven wrong by the community.

because your points are very situation dependant.
yes you can solo kill someone in a bs or a frig with carrier but after this sentence comes alot of IFS.

and because of those ifs this devblog is also for 80% not based on the truth.

also your new nerf plans are not outlined you dont want to share them to the community anymore based on the heavy reactions ?

i do wonder where this is going to.
and no i didnt post constructive and with good ideas if you wonder why.
your dev blog has nothing constructive and no new ideas either.

you at ccp have succesfully managed making this game less and less exciting every nerf a bit more.
but now you also achieved to stop my willingness to post on this forum again in these blogs.

as it appears to have no use and no effect.

Nick Parker
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2007.10.25 17:16:00 - [734]
 

Originally by: Sarah Aubry
Where to begin...

It saddens me to read this thread, the community which I thought made eve so great is appearing to be a bunch of childish spoiled brats.

The way in which many of you are disrespecting the developers as if they were your doormat is disgusting.

If you so high and mighty masters of eve know so much about games and balance why don't you go and make your own game?


CCP is in charge of EVE, you and your alliance, your friends, no matter how numerous are not. Even as a paying customer you have no rights here, you can make no demands. Your choice is to pay and play or not.

CCP are so gracious as to welcome your feedback and many of you insult and ridicule them.

The majority of complaints in this thread have already been answered! Allow me to try and assist those of you who cannot read normal text:

Carriers are not being turned into haulers

CCP are working on lag solutions - this has nothing to do with them

Our years of skill points will not be wasted

Please show some respect and think before you post. Remember, these are only ideas currently, none of them have gone live on TQ!


We PAY ccp. We provide there salaries so they can make this game. If we didn't pay it, their wouldn't be a EvE, and the Devs would be working for some crappy company being tech support for 60 year old men who can't figure out why the computer isn't on when all they need to do is press the power button. As far as I am concerned I payed CCP $83.70 USD to fly a carrier (Training for all skills required) and will probably pay them more to finish training the rest of the capital skills I need. THat figure doesn't include how much my former corp mates paid in mining/hauling all the materials about. So lets be cautious and say $223.20 for my old corp mates accounts. That is $306.20 that this ship is responsible for. I'm not a rich man by Any means, and that is a ****ton of cash to me. So I should have a bit of say so in how it is, and if I don't like the proposed changes (which I don't) I am going to say something.

If players don't raise hell, the devs won't listen. Trust me on this from past exp. I am shocked (and grateful) that they listened to us for once. From your post your either a forum alt or a noobie to eve. Either way You got no buisness posting in this thread.

Iroku Mata
Amarr
Ministry of War
Posted - 2007.10.25 17:18:00 - [735]
 

Edited by: Iroku Mata on 25/10/2007 17:21:03
Hi,

you want that a bunch of 1-2 months players are able to kill a Carrier or MS? For all DEVs and other EVE writers Im playing over 3 years now and I and other players like me deserve for his Euros (or Dolars) and time spended in this game a little bit more than be qualified als "milkcows" of CCP.

Im a lot ****ed of that this game are now made more and more for a few months old chars and guys that are old "milkcows" for CCP get less and less respect from you Iceland guys. "I got what I want now you can **** off" seem to be the new logo for CCP.

I remember times that after a server downtime for more than 3-4 hours we have had given a day playtime on your account.

Now the situation is: "old players?...man they know too much and allways only give destructive critics...let **** them of.."

Yeah...that again a destructive critic for CCP that give a "****" on his old "milkcows"...

...still waiting for Startrek online...

phunqe
Imperial Academy
Posted - 2007.10.25 17:29:00 - [736]
 

I had to double check the URL in my browser, I thought I had entered the WoW forums by mistake...

Sith8
Rage and Terror
Against ALL Authorities
Posted - 2007.10.25 17:35:00 - [737]
 

Just leave it guys, carriers and MS are fine the way they are.

Plz dont start fixing things that arent broken....
Consentrate your efforts on making alliance warfare doable instead.

My 2c

XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp
IT Alliance
Posted - 2007.10.25 17:41:00 - [738]
 

Edited by: XoPhyte on 25/10/2007 17:45:20
Edited by: XoPhyte on 25/10/2007 17:42:58
Originally by: Wodanonline
you almost make it sound like you made a terrible mistake introducing capital ships to this game.

Agreed. What keeps me playing is getting into that next ship, or being able to take advantage of some new module. When there is no more "progression path" then I will get bored and quit playing / paying. It's not a threat in anyway, it's just human nature.

Making such a sweeping change has brought forth a lot of reactions (including my own, though I never did want to kill Zulu or anybody else at CCP! Very Happy). I think what angered people the most was that the perceptions between players and developers is completely at odds with each other. Devs feel the carrier is a solo OMGWTFPWN ship yet the players see their own carriers and others get killed daily by much smaller and less expensive ships.

Some things are obvious, I don't remember that many people arguing the fact that a battleship SHOULD go 6kms per second when the nano-nerf came into effect, but others are going to knowingly cause a lot of reaction even by the own devs admission like wrangler from the first blog when he said "Making changes to EVE can be an easy or a difficult task, and a change that one person likes might not be palatable to someone else". Obviously you guys were aware that there was going to be some type of negative reaction, but it was obviously under estimated. And again I believe that this is due to perceptions, between the game that we play vs. the game that the devs play.

*This part is specifically to Zulu or other devs*
One thing that can typically speak through all of the crap is stats. One thing I have been wanting to put together since this announcement (sadly very busy at work right now and I can never quite seem to find the time, and yes I can write these posts quickly, so this only takes me 5 minutes!! Very Happy), is a spreadsheet which will calculate the training time and isk needed for a carrier and the training time and isk needed for a battleship.


  1. Then calculate that as a percentage to the overall amount of DPS a battleship can do vs the overall amount of DPS a carrier can do.

  2. Do that against repping abilites.

  3. Then do that with a battleship repping and damaging (which CAN be done if you remove some guns from your BS, most (all) people would rather do the damage).



It would be nice if CCP would give some of this data (or ANY data) that backs up your beliefs rather then write blogs based upon which we believe to be your perception. If you have data which shows that a carrier is overpowered, lets see the math behind it. And since CCP is YOUR job you may have more time then I do to come up with this spreadsheet Very Happy.

I think, but I could be wrong, that you would fine that in comparison to the cost and training time a carrier has a worse ratio of benefit to time/isk then any other ship in game. Which is the way it should be, damage and capabilites should not exponentially increase simply due to cost and time. So a carrier would fit in with the law of diminishing returns. Eventually there comes a point in which there IS nothing else to train for. Yes a carrier is better then a battleship, but once I trained for a battleship what else was I going to do? Just stop training?

I agree with choices as does most everyone else. However just realize to rep a pos I have a VERY different setup then I do when fighting, and a carrier hauling (which I have never done so I dunno) is going to have a very different setup then repping or fighting. Also if you want to give me mods which increase my fighter damage, but means I cant fit reppers, I would be fine with that as well. Thats a compromise, but one that I believe most people would accept, and it's far better then saying "we think your overpowered so now your nerfed to heck".

Back to work, to much time wasted already!

Christopher Multsanti
Euphoria Released
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2007.10.25 17:42:00 - [739]
 

STOP!!!!!!!!!




















Carry on....

Alz Shado
EverFlow
Posted - 2007.10.25 17:53:00 - [740]
 

Remove Cap Ships ewar immunity.

That's enough of a nerf to please everybody.

aquontium
Gallente
Fourth Circle
Posted - 2007.10.25 17:59:00 - [741]
 

Edited by: aquontium on 25/10/2007 18:02:25
Originally by: Sarah Aubry
Where to begin...

It saddens me to read this thread, the community which I thought made eve so great is appearing to be a bunch of childish spoiled brats.

The way in which many of you are disrespecting the developers as if they were your doormat is disgusting.

If you so high and mighty masters of eve know so much about games and balance why don't you go and make your own game?


CCP is in charge of EVE, you and your alliance, your friends, no matter how numerous are not. Even as a paying customer you have no rights here, you can make no demands. Your choice is to pay and play or not.

CCP are so gracious as to welcome your feedback and many of you insult and ridicule them.

The majority of complaints in this thread have already been answered! Allow me to try and assist those of you who cannot read normal text:

Carriers are not being turned into haulers

CCP are working on lag solutions - this has nothing to do with them

Our years of skill points will not be wasted

Please show some respect and think before you post. Remember, these are only ideas currently, none of them have gone live on TQ!


You're in SAK. You presumably know nothing about carriers and especially carriers in fleet combat. :P Our choice is to state our views as paying customers in a thread started by the developers requesting feedback. Remember that the 'ideas' you speak of went live on Singularity, the test server, and would've been deployed within 2-3 weeks were it not for the paying customers who have no rights.

While I respect and agree with your plea for the developers not to be treated like doormats, you don't deploy game-defining changes to a server cluster 'by accident'. As you probably don't fly a carrier you probably don't feel treated like a doormat. So please shut up and go back to where you came from. We're not all idiots, and you're not our teacher. [edited for 4am line breaks and typo]

aquontium
Gallente
Fourth Circle
Posted - 2007.10.25 18:05:00 - [742]
 

Could I just mention that if BoB, Goons, YW, Triumvirate, RA etc are all agreeing with each other on this, and both low and 0.0 sec pilots have the same opinions, and if both PvP and PvE based carrier pilots think CCP are wrong......then you as CCP may want to consider that you might be completely and utterly wrong?

Markius Proxim
Deadspace Knights
Matari Visionary Coalition
Posted - 2007.10.25 18:11:00 - [743]
 

Edited by: Markius Proxim on 25/10/2007 18:13:03
Whats the solution to every other super capital problem?

*Flight Ops Mode* Due to extensive landings and take offs, the carrier must anchor it's self for fighter recoveries.

Down sides:
Carrier can't move for X min, just like siege and triage etc, but allws pilot to assign more fighters, fighters loose auto aggression, requires module for anchoring and extra fighter control cpu. If turned off while 6+ fighters deployed, un-assigned fighters/drones go offline and are scoopable. Once deactivated, x min cool down for cleanup and resupply.

Upsides: Control 20 fighters, Fighters and drones repair armor while docked. Maybe run in conjunction with a triage!

Ofcourse you can edit parameters, but i'm sure u see my point.

Gridwalker
Amarr
Divine Power.
KIA Alliance
Posted - 2007.10.25 18:31:00 - [744]
 

Originally by: Sarah Aubry
Where to begin...

It saddens me to read this thread, the community which I thought made eve so great is appearing to be a bunch of childish spoiled brats.

The way in which many of you are disrespecting the developers as if they were your doormat is disgusting.



Ms. Aubry, the relationship between the developers and the players is inseparable. We need them, and they need us. We love this game. They love this game. We want to keep playing. They want us to keep playing.

We're a family, and sometimes families argue and fight. And at the end of the day, even after throwing insults and making a big fuss, we'll still be family. The day that we no longer make a fuss when something like this happens, is the day when EVE *is* over. That is because we'll no longer care. "Oh well, it was fun while it lasted. Wonder what is going on with Tabula Rasa?"

CCP started this whole mess by announcing that they were thinking about taking what is arguably the carriers' primary role--a fighter boat--and severely neutering it. The bonuses that carriers get are largely to support fighters, and lots of them. The descriptions of the carriers support this. "Sporting the latest in fighter command interfacing..." "...to act as a fighter carrier..." "Designed to act primarily as a fighter carrier..." "Imagine a dozen deadly hornets pouring from the devil's mouth."

Carrier pilots--and aspiring carrier pilots--of course reacted swiftly and harshly. We felt it was a big mistake, and that the concept was misguided.

One of the things that has people the most concerned is the whole concept of forcing fighter delegation. This can't work with the current state of the game, because severe lag in fleet battles makes delegating fighters nearly impossible:
- The person you delegate to is probably already dead.
- It is impossible to know who you've delegated to already, and who needs fighters.
- Five fighters costs 100m isk and are extremely fragile.
- The drone interface is clumsy and difficult to work with, especially with lag.

Fighter delegation, with the current state of the game, will simply gimp carriers and force carrier pilots back AWAY from the front lines and back to POS hugging. No one wants that to happen.

For this reason, we wonder how much play time the developers really have in the "live" tranquility environment. Have the developers become disconnected with the reality of the game? If this is the case, they need to be snapped back to reality quickly, or EVE will start to pull itself apart as developers make decisions based on what looks good on paper, instead of what is practical in real gameplay.

Now one can argue that CCP is going to fix the lag problems, fix the GUI, make things so delegation works perfectly, and everything is going to be great... except, we don't know how rev 3 is going to affect things. I'm certain the developers don't really know either. Rev 3 has to be deployed, and we all need to see what the effects really are. Only then can we talk about nerfing/boosting/changing/tweaking/whatever carriers.

Just consider the investment in time and isk that carrier pilots have! A solid billion isk in skills alone, up to 18 months of training to become effective with your carrier, a couple of billion for the carrier and fittings, hundreds of millions for fragile fighters. Surely you can understand our reaction, and surely CCP "owes us" a firm commitment to do it right. The players and developers have a PARTNERSHIP, and both parties are strongly committed to the success of EVE!

And for the record, someone who spends billions of isk and over a year of training is quite far from being a "spoiled brat", when it appears there is a risk of that investment being decimated by what we perceive as a misguided attempt to fix a problem that doesn't seem to exist or isn't properly defined.

-Grid

Xeron Silverblade
Esthar Industries
Posted - 2007.10.25 18:31:00 - [745]
 

i really like to see some of you in this thread and give some feedback. devs as well as players

Vincae
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams
Mercenary Coalition
Posted - 2007.10.25 18:35:00 - [746]
 

Quote:
There are more than 10,000 Carriers in play, a vessel which can be everything you want it to be (which is part of the problem) without having to fit for the occasion.


I'm curious as to how this figure (10,000 carriers) compares to their nearest "class" analog - Dreadnaughts. Would it be possible to get a figure on the number of Dreads as well, along with updated figures that limit these ship figures by a maximum of 1 per character (thus to exclude those who keep spares fitted)?

It's entirely possible that if Dreadnaughts filled the more "offensive" capital ship role (rather than solely the "siege" role) by once more allowing their turrets to actually hit BS & BC sized targets, that players would trend towards differing ship choices naturally.

Just food for thought.

Lazuran
Gallente
Aliastra
Posted - 2007.10.25 18:39:00 - [747]
 

Edited by: Lazuran on 25/10/2007 18:40:36
Originally by: Fenderson
Originally by: The Economist
Originally by: Fenderson
they should rely more on gang mates to protect them from smaller ships.


What? As opposed to now when anything more than a 1v1 vs a smaller ship results in a dead carrier?

Yeah clearly carriers are overpowered when it comes to solo self-defence.

Rolling Eyes

Seriously, a carrier without gang-mates to, as you put it, "protect them from smaller ships", is nothing but a wreck full of loot.


i was more thinking about fleet defense than solo defense.

right now you simply cannot attack a blob of carriers with a blob of smaller ships because the smaller ships totally lose their advantage when the lag kicks in. this would be mitigated a bit if carriers were nerfed against smaller ships.


Why not just change mechanics so that Carriers are affected by lag in the same way?

It's so pathetic how lag is cited as the ultimate reason for everything. Lag affects everyone and it has to be fixed, but nerfing stuff left and right because lag affects people currently is just wrong. If the game is shaped by lag, it's time to move on.

(and btw., officially, lag isn't one of the reasons for CCP's eagerness to nerf the Carrier)

Tiny Carlos
Posted - 2007.10.25 18:42:00 - [748]
 

Originally by: The Economist
Originally by: Tiny Carlos
Quote:
Even if down the line we see a gang of say 100 carriers and a dictor...you know what'll happen? Someone like BoB will form a conventional fleet and go kill them.


I think we'd be getting a bigger gang of caps TBH, you'd get whiped out taking on a 100 carriers in a coventional fleet.


Sure you could take a fleet of caps, risk getting jumped by the enemy adding a support fleet to their caps, slug it out at point blank etc...

Or you could just have dictors doing flybys on the caps, frigs/recons/cruisers cycle dampening and a sniper fleet killing them from 201km away, pointing and laughing; minimal risk, minimal losses.

I know what I'd be doing.


I take it you have little or no experiance in large scale PvP.

Try flybying a cariier group in a dictor with 200+ players worth of lag, 100 carriers trying to neut you, and hundreds of light drones on you.

Ikthorn Balhar
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2007.10.25 18:45:00 - [749]
 

Edited by: Ikthorn Balhar on 25/10/2007 18:53:30
I find this back-pedalling by CCP with regard to possible changes in carriers a very sad turn of events.

I think carriers and motherships were broken to begin with. Their logistic and combat abilities were not properly evaluated when the class was first released, and now it's too late to bring them inline with what they really should have been to begin with.
Carriers and motherships should really not have been anything more than logistic behemoths. They should never have been capable to be used as solo ships for anything, requiring a gang to be ever-present as support, very much the same way that real-life carriers are nowadays, where they're usually part of a fleet.
Heck, I don't think they should be able to target hostiles; they should only be able to target friendlies, or maybe only fit remote rep/shield boosters/gang mods so that they'd be limited to their logistics role. Of course, this will never happen.

It's also worthy of mention that some of the those who've been very vocal in their discontent with these changes have more than just their training time to get into a carrier at stake here. I know for a fact that several of those who posted in the other thread have spent a considerable amount of cold hard cash buying GTCs to sell for isk to fund their carrier purchases, as well as to buy carrier-capable characters.
It's one thing to whine about spending a few months training for a ship that gets changed before you know it; it's another thing to spend several hundreds of dollars to buy GTCs for isk for accounts and ships, only to have this pop up on the horizon, therefore ruining your investment. These were some of the people that are now threatening to cancel their x number of accounts.

I really wish CCP would go ahead with the carrier changes as they first planned them; it'd be a good way to get rid of a bunch of 'dead weight'.

Note: These are my own feelings and in no way represent those of my corporation or alliance.
Edit: Clarity and disclaimer.

Faxtarious
Minmatar
Kai-Zen Security
Posted - 2007.10.25 18:59:00 - [750]
 

110 pages in the last one...25 in that one and counting...

statistics say that this "game" is played by adults (on average)
But I can't seem to understand why you guys "*b-i-t-c-h*" like 5 year old over this ?


think "Outside" the box "cauz ain't a damn thing changed"

EVE-Online Cool


Pages: first : previous : ... 21 22 23 24 [25] 26 27 28 29 ... : 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