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 : ... 22 23 24 25 [26] 27 28 29 30 ... : last (38)

Author Topic

Demjon
Posted - 2007.10.25 19:00:00 - [751]
 

Just keep it simple ccp,

Expand the role of defender missles to include anti fighter or even anti drone as well as anti missle roles. Make fighters cheaper to afford and let the smaller ship classes decide how many missle launchers with defender missles to equip. You could even make it so the fighter/drone dont have to be targeted and the defender missles will go after any fighter/drones in range, that makes a support fleet much more important and able to defend themselves against alot of carriers. Basically your equiping ships with anti air defenses that you just turn on and let the carrier pilots worry about thier fighters being blown up. Then you will only have to decide how much damage defender missles will do to fighter/drone types. I think I can speak for all of EVE when I say you can swing that nerf bat all you want.

The key here is to make the prices on fighters and drones that much cheaper making them easier to replace because we like to fight but don't want to spend too much time carebearing to make up for it.

Clerence Thomas
Black Lotus Heavy Industries
Ethereal Dawn
Posted - 2007.10.25 19:04:00 - [752]
 

Originally by: Ikthorn Balhar
Edited by: Ikthorn Balhar on 25/10/2007 18:51:43
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'.



You sir, are the dead weight. :p Thanks for playing.

Personally, I buy the GTCs with my isk to keep playing, otherwise I couldn't afford the real $$ cost of play... and I've worked hard for my in game assets... I don't begrudge those that pay for me to play their kickbacks, it's all part of the game. They keep me playing, I keep them supplied; simple economic utility there.

And carriers were pre nerfed when they came in. They promised us some un ner***e at a later date. Then they come in and want to take the nerf bat to my precious ship?? For the love of t20 dammit.

In case you haven't noticed - they require a gang at all times to move between systems and defend themselves. It's whiners like you that got me pulled off of proper pos hugging and saddled with a stupid triage module that is useless while being expected to rep everyone in sight, thus screwing my damage output even more. That's not what a carrier is or should be.

WardogX
Minmatar
Outkasts
Posted - 2007.10.25 19:19:00 - [753]
 

Originally by: CCP kieron
It is obvious that the last Dev Blog concerning some proposed changes to Carriers was the equivalent to kicking the proverbial ant hill. The community's response to potential changes to a favorite ship has been more fierce than we expected. However, that does not change the core idea behind the change to Carriers, that one ship should not be able to do everything and do so effectively without penalty.

We've listened to the feedback, discussed the proposed changes and have another proposed list of changes. We do not see a problem with a ship being a jack of all trades and as long as it is a master of none, but when the ship is a master of all trades, then it departs from the original design concept.

We hope the new proposed changes will be more palatable than the previous. To find out what those proposed changes are, please read Carriers, the Swiss Army Knife of EVE???


Do you want to make your community happy and stop carriers/moms from being the swiss army knife of capital ships, both at the same time? Its possible and easy to do!

Instead of considering ways to change the carrier and mothership... just create more varieties of capital ships. If you give us players more to chose from with capital ships you will find the community won't migrate towards one ship.

The reason people migrate towards moms and carriers is becuase its the only ship thats useful for the average player looking to step into something capital sized. Dreads are more for POS and Capital vs Capital engagements. Titans are for special use large scale warfare and so out of everyones price league only the rare few can afford them.

Its obvious the carrier is going to be the "go to" ship for players when we only have 3 options 1 of which is insanely pricey. If you create a series of affordable capital ships (1-2 billion isk range) that fill other valuable roles that are fun to play I guarantee you everyone wont be in a thanatos and a nyx! Just take a look at how diverse you have made cruisers and frigates .. there is flavor imaginable that do all sorts of specific roles. If you take the time and address capital ships with the same creativity you will find plenty of capital ships types you can still make!

No nurfs... just add more capital ships and make the new ships balanced.. its win/win for everyone. You will come out looking like heroes for giving players new things to strive for in their favorite game rather then making them want to quit over a nurf. I hope you take this heart.. I gave it a lot of thought over the last day and this is the best path in my eyes.

Ikthorn Balhar
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2007.10.25 19:22:00 - [754]
 

Edited by: Ikthorn Balhar on 25/10/2007 19:31:23
Originally by: Clerence Thomas

Personally, I buy the GTCs with my isk to keep playing, otherwise I couldn't afford the real $$ cost of play... and I've worked hard for my in game assets... I don't begrudge those that pay for me to play their kickbacks, it's all part of the game. They keep me playing, I keep them supplied; simple economic utility there.


It's one thing to buy GTCs with isk or money to play. It's another to spend cash to buy GTCs to get isk to buy multiple character accounts and carriers, only to have CCP nerf them at a later time, which then makes those who do this whine to no end.
Let's assume that to buy a carrier and fittings, you're looking at about 4bill or so for a decent fit, then add the cost of a carrier-ready pilot (if you don't train it yourself), which would be another 4 bill. 8 billion isk would cost you approximately $670 if you're buying a bunch of 30-day GTCs to fund this (assuming 175mil / 30-day GTC). That's a lot of money to spend for pixels, specially if said pixels become nerfed. See what I mean?

Originally by: Clerence Thomas

And carriers were pre nerfed when they came in. They promised us some un ner***e at a later date. Then they come in and want to take the nerf bat to my precious ship?? For the love of t20 dammit.

In case you haven't noticed - they require a gang at all times to move between systems and defend themselves.


No, carriers and motherships don't require a gang. They only require one or two cyno alts to move around. May I remind you of the antics of Miz Cenuij with his smartbombing Nyx?

Step 1: Camp lo-sec gate
Step 2: Smarbomb everything
Step 3: Proffit!
Step 4: Cyno out when it starts getting heated.

They *should* require a gang to move between systems and defend themselves, but right now, there's not much your average *small* group of roaming ships can do to a decently-fitted carrier, and virtually nothing they can do against a mothership. Yes, you can kill a mothership, but for the lack of other capitals, you can't do it unless you have a well-thought plan, very much like x13 (I believe) showed us not that long ago with that low-sec mothership kill.

Originally by: Clerence Thomas

It's whiners like you that got me pulled off of proper pos hugging and saddled with a stupid triage module that is useless while being expected to rep everyone in sight, thus screwing my damage output even more. That's not what a carrier is or should be.


That's exactly what a carrier should be doing; logistic support of the fleet, *not* DPS.
You were a perfect example of the point I was trying to make. You want DPS, get into a dread. Oh, they're only good for sieging POSes? Tough luck. You don't get into a Guardian or a Oneiros and expect to be dishing out MAD DPS YO!, do you?
Carriers should be there to support the fleet, and delegate fighters as needed, not to be on killmails. This is what CCP should have done from the beginning, but thanks to the single-mindedness of some people with their focus on "ZOMG WHAT ABOUT MY DPS!", they started off broken, and they'll stay broken because now it's too late to really fix them.

Edit: clarity

Hysidee
Warped Mining
Posted - 2007.10.25 19:25:00 - [755]
 

A titan is just as good at being a jack of all trades ship as a mothership, only differnece being a carrier uses a doomsday and capital turrets for damage, a mothership uses drones.

Titans and motherships both have:
Large ship maintenance arrays
Large corp hangers
The possibility to be logistics ships while attacking ships in one fit

So why effect motherships with this change and not titans???

CCP please answer this one

Sigras
Gallente
Conglomo
Posted - 2007.10.25 19:28:00 - [756]
 

again, i must reiterate, as per my last post, and i would really like a dev to respond to this, was your intent to make a carrier or a logistics support ship?

im not trying to tear down your intelligence or intent of the ship im just asking; because the description im getting from you all especially with this new nerf is that you wanted a logistics support ship.

I think a lot of what ppl are hung up on is the fact that it is called a carrier which immediately leads ppl to think of the US Supercarriers which store and launch a LOAD of fighters and send them to uber pwn anything that ****es off the captain.

if you wanted a carrier, that certainly isn't what it is now, and if you wanted a capital support ship then you should have THOUGHT before you named it a carrier!

again, my opinion is that its wrong to remove anything that is in existence just because its sick; make something that makes the pilot think about the risks he's taking when he does whatever he does.

for example; leave carriers the way they are, but let them fly no drones, only fighters, and put in the uber fighter pwning cruisers, so now a carrier pilot has 2 choices
1 i can go out and try to pwn stuff solo and possibly get all my fighters pwned by something 1/5 my cost
2 i can fly with support

this would balance the game much better than forcing the carrier to do the same thing all the time. This would be like ONLY allowing the scorpion to fit e-war in the mids; yeah they usually do, and thats what they're designed for, but i have a friend who supertanks his scorp so that when ppl call him primary, they wish they'd hadn't.

what first drew me to eve is that it seemed like the game was a game of options; and now from several options with the carrier, im limited to one; POS sitting support ship

Kailiao
Mean Corp
Mean Coalition
Posted - 2007.10.25 19:44:00 - [757]
 

All i want is to not allow mom's/titan's in low-sec, whatever else they do to carriers/dreads, either by way of a buff, or nerf, then so be it.

I trained for a thanatos, close to max skills, got one, flew it for 4 days and sold it lol. Arguably the most boreing ship i have ever flown, and a pain in the ass to fly. Christ an alt is allmost required to fly one.

My point being... well i don't have one, lol, i just hate cap ships YARRRR!!

Moon Kitten
GoonWaffe
Posted - 2007.10.25 19:53:00 - [758]
 

I agree, carriers and motherships need some changes in order to bring them inline with other ships.

Johsia
Gallente
Vox de Lucis
Posted - 2007.10.25 19:55:00 - [759]
 

Quote:
I think a lot of what ppl are hung up on is the fact that it is called a carrier which immediately leads ppl to think of the US Supercarriers which store and launch a LOAD of fighters and send them to uber pwn anything that ****es off the captain.


That is a major problem because "uber pwn" is not a great description for any carrier in real life. Real carriers are escorted by other ships since they are very vulnerable to attack from planes, submarines, and ships. So I would say CCP named them quite perfectly but smugged the details on what exactly the carriers should be able to do. I think the new patch will bring more in line with what actual carriers do.


Gridwalker
Amarr
Divine Power.
KIA Alliance
Posted - 2007.10.25 20:09:00 - [760]
 

Originally by: Moon Kitten
I agree, carriers and motherships need some changes in order to bring them inline with other ships.


Sounds like a plan! Let's get the price of carriers down to about 100m isk from over a billion, training time down to about 3 months from 18 months, skillbook requirements down to about 50m isk instead of about a billion, allow them into empire, and make it so you don't need a lowsec POS to build them and several billions worth of blueprints and months of research.

I so hate the attitude that some people have, that when someone works very hard to achieve something, and other people are unwilling to put in the time and effort, that somehow those people DESERVE to have the thing they worked so hard to achieve taken from them.

-Grid

Hysidee
Warped Mining
Posted - 2007.10.25 20:11:00 - [761]
 

Originally by: Gridwalker
Originally by: Moon Kitten
I agree, carriers and motherships need some changes in order to bring them inline with other ships.


Sounds like a plan! Let's get the price of carriers down to about 100m isk from over a billion, training time down to about 3 months from 18 months, skillbook requirements down to about 50m isk instead of about a billion, allow them into empire, and make it so you don't need a lowsec POS to build them and several billions worth of blueprints and months of research.

I so hate the attitude that some people have, that when someone works very hard to achieve something, and other people are unwilling to put in the time and effort, that somehow those people DESERVE to have the thing they worked so hard to achieve taken from them.

-Grid



Just a FYI but they dont need a low sec pos to build, a carrier or dread can be built in stations

Stinger169
Resurrection
Gentlemen's Club
Posted - 2007.10.25 20:26:00 - [762]
 

One of the things that has kept me playing Eve for so long and not going over to another MMO is that there is so much room to grow. I finally got a carrier after over 2 years of play. I feel I have earned it. Yeah, it's uber, yeah it kicks butt, but I have been playing a lot and feel it is one of a few ultimate goals tht keeps people playing. You see that guy in a carrier when you're a noob and you're like "wow, i want to be that guy someday" Now that really cool thing I spen the last 2 years getting isn't even half as good as it used to be.

CCP is always trying to get new customers and that's great. But the new customers may only stay for a few months. Keeping the old customers happy is more important for the $$ flow and shows that yes I have an uber ship but I've earned it.
They can still be killed, it just takes a lot of ships. But it took a lot to get it also.

Autumn Sky
Spartan Industrial Manufacturing
SMASH Alliance
Posted - 2007.10.25 20:26:00 - [763]
 

I can't speak for anyone else, but when I see a carrier out in space, my first thought is, "Wow...". And that is quickly followed by, "Oh, crap! I hope they're friendly!"

I *enjoy* the awe. I *want* to feel the rush, no matter what kind of ship I'm in. I don't want to go up to a carrier in my raven and say, "Well...I can tank this all day." I'd have no inspiration to go ISK- and skill-grinding to fly something I could laugh at in a battleship.

Going into a battle with carriers on your side is always a morale booster. It's not because carriers are the omgpwnzmobile ships that guarantee a win for your side. It's because you have more of a fighting chance, and you know you have experienced pilots flying beside you. I don't see carriers every day, and never have. From my personal experience, they are neither overpowered, nor overused.


Clerence Thomas
Black Lotus Heavy Industries
Ethereal Dawn
Posted - 2007.10.25 20:36:00 - [764]
 

Edited by: Clerence Thomas on 25/10/2007 20:37:06
Originally by: Ikthorn Balhar
Edited by: Ikthorn Balhar on 25/10/2007 19:31:23
It's one thing to buy GTCs with isk or money to play. It's another to spend cash to buy GTCs to get isk to buy multiple character accounts and carriers, only to have CCP nerf them at a later time, which then makes those who do this whine to no end.
Let's assume that to buy a carrier and fittings, you're looking at about 4bill or so for a decent fit, then add the cost of a carrier-ready pilot (if you don't train it yourself), which would be another 4 bill. 8 billion isk would cost you approximately $670 if you're buying a bunch of 30-day GTCs to fund this (assuming 175mil / 30-day GTC). That's a lot of money to spend for pixels, specially if said pixels become nerfed. See what I mean?



And you miss, spectacularly. Cute reply though. :) If they choose to work it that way, so be it. Works for me. Keeps me supplied with time codes and customers.

Originally by: Ikthorn Balhar

No, carriers and motherships don't require a gang. They only require one or two cyno alts to move around. May I remind you of the antics of Miz Cenuij with his smartbombing Nyx?

Step 1: Camp lo-sec gate
Step 2: Smarbomb everything
Step 3: Proffit!
Step 4: Cyno out when it starts getting heated.



Sounds like a gang to me. :) Granted, not a full dress military combat gang. But pirates don't do that. Pirates play dirty. They target the weak and run when a competent opponent shows. How is this any different from a sniper battle ship doing basically the same thing? Battleships shouldn't travel solo either. (they should also be as big as the carriers, tbh)

Originally by: Ikthorn Balhar

They *should* require a gang to move between systems and defend themselves, but right now, there's not much your average *small* group of roaming ships can do to a decently-fitted carrier, and virtually nothing they can do against a mothership. Yes, you can kill a mothership, but for the lack of other capitals, you can't do it unless you have a well-thought plan, very much like x13 (I believe) showed us not that long ago with that low-sec mothership kill.



And they do, or did you forget that they need cyno support? And friends to help them out against a competent opponent?

Originally by: Ikthorn Balhar

That's exactly what a carrier should be doing; logistic support of the fleet, *not* DPS.


Carriers are _not_ logistics boats, that's what fleet supply ships are for. They are force projection - they launch fighters/bombers/intel birds, and yes, they are responsible for maint on those (hint CCP: allow me to repair drones in my bay, make it a mod or special mode) but not the rest of the fleet.

Originally by: Ikthorn Balhar

You were a perfect example of the point I was trying to make. You want DPS, get into a dread. Oh, they're only good for sieging POSes? Tough luck. You don't get into a Guardian or a Oneiros and expect to be dishing out MAD DPS YO!, do you?

Carriers should be there to support the fleet, and delegate fighters as needed, not to be on killmails. This is what CCP should have done from the beginning, but thanks to the single-mindedness of some people with their focus on "ZOMG WHAT ABOUT MY DPS!", they started off broken, and they'll stay broken because now it's too late to really fix them.



Now you're just being silly. DPS is a requirement to fill a carriers support role. Mind you not direct DPS, but projected DPS (hint CCP: Give fighters a better DPS profile when delegated).

And yes, they started out broken. They started out pre nerfed. ;)

edit: Extra wording

infinityshok
ZYNC
Posted - 2007.10.25 20:44:00 - [765]
 

Of all the suggestions Ive read in these posts there is something I havent seen and feel may be useful to mention. (Yes. Ive read them all. Every last one.)

There should be more options with configuring the ship to allow gang mates access. For example, allowing access to one feature while disallowing access to another. It isnt a big deal allowing access to fittings but when in a 100+ member gang one never knows what riff raff are mucking about. It may be Halloween but there aint no trick-or-treat going on with the goodies in my corp hanger bay.

Ikthorn Balhar
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2007.10.25 21:08:00 - [766]
 

Edited by: Ikthorn Balhar on 25/10/2007 21:12:04
Originally by: Clerence Thomas
Edited by: Clerence Thomas on 25/10/2007 20:37:06And you miss, spectacularly. Cute reply though. :) If they choose to work it that way, so be it. Works for me. Keeps me supplied with time codes and customers.


I miss... what? My point is that some of those whining against carrier changes have more at stake than just the ship capabilities. Their motives for being against these carrier changes are less than commendable, since they need to make sure their cold-hard-cash investment is not going to get nerfed to oblivion, as it'd be akin to ****ing the money away (one could say they did it already, spending money on pixels, but I digress).
Whether or not that works in your favor is irrelevant to my point, since like I said, I have nothing against those that build their wealth by playing the market, mining, production, etc.
Maybe you missed my point entirely?

Originally by: Clerence Thomas
Sounds like a gang to me. :) Granted, not a full dress military combat gang. But pirates don't do that. Pirates play dirty. They target the weak and run when a competent opponent shows. How is this any different from a sniper battle ship doing basically the same thing? Battleships shouldn't travel solo either. (they should also be as big as the carriers, tbh)


Agreed on those points, but I was illustrating the fact that a single player should not be flying around in a virtual solo-pwnmobile, as the devs have stated in the past. Sniper fleet battles are not even close to similar to a smart-bombing carrier or mothership, and if I have to explain why, then maybe we should stop discussing this altogether.

Originally by: Clerence Thomas
And they do, or did you forget that they need cyno support? And friends to help them out against a competent opponent?


It seems you did not understand what I said. One cyno alt does not constitute a 'support gang'.

Originally by: Clerence Thomas
Carriers are _not_ logistics boats, that's what fleet supply ships are for. They are force projection - they launch fighters/bombers/intel birds, and yes, they are responsible for maint on those (hint CCP: allow me to repair drones in my bay, make it a mod or special mode) but not the rest of the fleet.


And that was my whole point. Carriers were supposed to be fleet support ships, but CCP messed up from the beginning in defining the role properly, so they become just a big drone solo-pwnmobile ship.
Look at the bonuses carriers have:

Racial-dependent role bonus
Role bonus to Capital Shield/Armor/Energy transfer range
99% reduction in CPU need for Warfare Link modules
99% reduction in CPU need for Tactical Logistics Reconfiguration modules
Ship maintenance bay

Those seem like bonuses tailored for a fleet support ship to me, no?

Originally by: Clerence Thomas
Now you're just being silly. DPS is a requirement to fill a carriers support role. Mind you not direct DPS, but projected DPS (hint CCP: Give fighters a better DPS profile when delegated).


How is DPS a requirement to fill a support role? Other than assigning the fighters to a gang/squad/fleet member, there should be no reason a carrier should be doing any DPS at all. Yah, I understand that could really suck when it comes to kb stats, but you're in a giant logistics ship. Live with it.
Unfortunately, CCP did not make their role clear enough from the beginning, so now it's too late to do anything about it, at least to put them in their proper role.
Heck, it's a lot easier to fighter-bomb an enemy fleet rather than engage them with a BS fleet because of lag (you know, the whole auto-aggro thing), and level 5 missions are probably also cake in a carrier (never did one, so I'm just making an educated guess).

Originally by: Clerence Thomas
And yes, they started out broken. They started out pre nerfed. ;)


If you really think so, then you once again prove my point that CCP really can't do anything to fix carriers now.

Edit: clarity

Franga
NQX Innovations
Posted - 2007.10.25 21:17:00 - [767]
 

Those 'twists' on the carriers/moms campaign sigs are freakin' hilarious. Particularly the lamers/whiners ones.

Can anyone make me one for the Bantam? Horribly underpowered and very role specific. Horrible, just horrible. And shocking.

Gridwalker
Amarr
Divine Power.
KIA Alliance
Posted - 2007.10.25 21:29:00 - [768]
 

Originally by: Ikthorn Balhar

Look at the bonuses carriers have:

Racial-dependent role bonus
Role bonus to Capital Shield/Armor/Energy transfer range
99% reduction in CPU need for Warfare Link modules
99% reduction in CPU need for Tactical Logistics Reconfiguration modules
Ship maintenance bay

Those seem like bonuses tailored for a fleet support ship to me, no?



Well, don't just show only HALF of the bonuses...

5% bonus to deployed Fighters' damage per level
Can deploy 1 additional Fighter per level
200% bonus to Fighter control range

I get a little nervous when someone leaves out literally half the facts in order to prove a point.

And then, as I keep pointing out, the descriptions of the carriers use terms like "...Designed to act primarily as a fighter carrier for small- to mid-scale engagements, its significant defensive capabilities and specially-fitted fighter bays make it ideal for its intended purpose."

So, what was it designed to do? You can point to three bonuses that indicate it was supposed to be a logistics and support ship. I can point to three bonuses and the descriptions on the stupid things to indicate it is supposed to be a fighter boat.

-Grid

Clerence Thomas
Black Lotus Heavy Industries
Ethereal Dawn
Posted - 2007.10.25 21:41:00 - [769]
 

Originally by: Ikthorn Balhar
I miss... what? My point is that some of those whining against carrier changes have more at stake than just the ship capabilities. Their motives for being against these carrier changes are less than commendable, since they need to make sure their cold-hard-cash investment is not going to get nerfed to oblivion, as it'd be akin to ****ing the money away (one could say they did it already, spending money on pixels, but I digress).
Whether or not that works in your favor is irrelevant to my point, since like I said, I have nothing against those that build their wealth by playing the market, mining, production, etc.
Maybe you missed my point entirely?

Okay, so you don't have a point? :P *shrug* More or less you see a problem where I don't. That's where we are on that one.

Originally by: Ikthorn Balhar
Agreed on those points, but I was illustrating the fact that a single player should not be flying around in a virtual solo-pwnmobile, as the devs have stated in the past. Sniper fleet battles are not even close to similar to a smart-bombing carrier or mothership, and if I have to explain why, then maybe we should stop discussing this altogether.

I take it you haven't been sniped on the way to market across the .4 boarder in an itty v by a solo sniper? Or in your frigate? I'm simply saying that the smartbombing MS isn't really much different. Just a different approach - as such I see no problems with it. For the sake of openness, i've been on the bad end of a solo gank battleship, haven't seen a smart bomb MS camp. It's just dirty pirate play.

Originally by: Ikthorn Balhar
It seems you did not understand what I said. One cyno alt does not constitute a 'support gang'.

It does to a pirate. I did stipulate that it wasn't a full dress military gang, but it is technically a gang.

Originally by: Ikthorn Balhar
And that was my whole point. Carriers were supposed to be fleet support ships, but CCP messed up from the beginning in defining the role properly, so they become just a big drone solo-pwnmobile ship.

They named it wrong...

Originally by: Ikthorn Balhar
Look at the bonuses carriers have:

Racial-dependent role bonus
Role bonus to Capital Shield/Armor/Energy transfer range
99% reduction in CPU need for Warfare Link modules
99% reduction in CPU need for Tactical Logistics Reconfiguration modules
Ship maintenance bay

Those seem like bonuses tailored for a fleet support ship to me, no?

No.The warfare link modules aren't support, they are command. Traditionally the carrier is the command ship of it's group. The transfer range and logistics modules came out in an earlier round of carrier hate/role change. They need to go away. As to the ship maint bay - it's a classic scifi extension of the carrier.

Originally by: Ikthorn Balhar
How is DPS a requirement to fill a support role? Other than assigning the fighters to a gang/squad/fleet member, there should be no reason a carrier should be doing any DPS at all. Yah, I understand that could really suck when it comes to kb stats, but you're in a giant logistics ship. Live with it.

Force projection. Carriers are the long range artillery of the sea(space). They project firepower(DPS) out away from themselves. DPS is nessesary if you are going to project DPS.

Originally by: Ikthorn Balhar
Unfortunately, CCP did not make their role clear enough from the beginning, so now it's too late to do anything about it, at least to put them in their proper role.

Actually, they were, but rather then make a new support ship...

-snip- we talk too much

Originally by: Ikthorn Balhar
If you really think so, then you once again prove my point that CCP really can't do anything to fix carriers now.

Sure they can - remove the #$%@#$@%@# logistics crap and make them real carriers. :) Then add logistics ships.

Ikthorn Balhar
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2007.10.25 21:52:00 - [770]
 

Originally by: Gridwalker


Well, don't just show only HALF of the bonuses...

5% bonus to deployed Fighters' damage per level
Can deploy 1 additional Fighter per level
200% bonus to Fighter control range

I get a little nervous when someone leaves out literally half the facts in order to prove a point.

And then, as I keep pointing out, the descriptions of the carriers use terms like "...Designed to act primarily as a fighter carrier for small- to mid-scale engagements, its significant defensive capabilities and specially-fitted fighter bays make it ideal for its intended purpose."

So, what was it designed to do? You can point to three bonuses that indicate it was supposed to be a logistics and support ship. I can point to three bonuses and the descriptions on the stupid things to indicate it is supposed to be a fighter boat.

-Grid



What you quoted was a direct reply to the other poster regarding carriers not being meant to be fleet support ships. If you want to talk about omitting bonuses to prove a point, you should state that the other bonuses you posted are specifically for the Thanatos. The Nyx also gets the same damage bonus (since it's a Gallente ship).
So, let's take a look in detail at the other half of the bonuses you mentioned:

5% bonus to deployed Fighters' damage per level

Only applies to Gallente carrier/mothership. Since it's a racial skill, and not a class skill, it doesn't bear into the discussion about the class.

Can deploy 1 additional Fighter per level

Ok. So carrier pilots can deploy additional fighters and delegate them as they see fit. Still not meant to be DPS class.

200% bonus to Fighter control range

Ok. So you can control your fighters at longer ranges, say, in case whoever you assigned them to gets popped, and you need to re-assign them. Still has nothing to do with being meant for DPS.

None of the other carriers or motherships gets a damage bonus. All of them get racial-specific bonuses for fleet support (energy, armor, and shield transfer), as well as bonuses for gang mods. Motherships get the added benefit of fitting extra gang mods depending on skill level. I never said anything about carriers not meant to be fighter boats, in the sense that they carry the fighters to the front line, deploy fighters, assign to fleet members, and provide logistic support. However, I do not believe CCP meant them to be used as ZOMGUBERPWNAGE solo or semi-solo ships, but (as I mentioned in a previous post) capital logistic support ships, which means DPS shouldn't really be relevant.

John McCreedy
Caldari
Eve Defence Force
Posted - 2007.10.25 21:55:00 - [771]
 

Zulu, I think if you where to provide us with a route to specialise beyond where a Carrier currently is at, then you'd get a warmer response from the community who can fly them. Our reaction seems not to be based upon the fact you want to allow us to specialise in them more, rather it is a result that you wish to nerf a Carrier before allowing us to specialise.


Gud Gad
Posted - 2007.10.25 21:56:00 - [772]
 

Originally by: Ikthorn Balhar
However, I do not believe CCP meant them to be used as ZOMGUBERPWNAGE solo or semi-solo ships



They aren't?

Clerence Thomas
Black Lotus Heavy Industries
Ethereal Dawn
Posted - 2007.10.25 22:04:00 - [773]
 

Edited by: Clerence Thomas on 25/10/2007 22:11:29
Originally by: Gud Gad
Originally by: Ikthorn Balhar
However, I do not believe CCP meant them to be used as ZOMGUBERPWNAGE solo or semi-solo ships



They aren't?


*shrug* got me. :P From what i've seen they tend to be on the loosing end of a gang half their cost. And I've been on both ends of that one. :|

Hysidee
Warped Mining
Posted - 2007.10.25 22:08:00 - [774]
 

Edited by: Hysidee on 25/10/2007 22:34:09
Edited by: Hysidee on 25/10/2007 22:08:53
Originally by: Ikthorn Balhar

None of the other carriers or motherships gets a damage bonus. All of them get racial-specific bonuses for fleet support (energy, armor, and shield transfer), as well as bonuses for gang mods.



True to a degree, but again as someone pointed out before its half the facts. Yes a thanatos gets a damage bonus, but the other carriers get there own racial bonus aswell, the various armour transfers etc are applied accross the board:

Thanatos:
Gallente Carrier Skill Bonuses:
50% bonus to Capital Shield and Armor transfer range per level
5% bonus to deployed Fighters’ damage per level

Archon:
Amarr Carrier Skill Bonuses:
50% bonus to Capital Energy and Armor transfer range per level
5% bonus to all Armor resistances per level

Chimera:
Caldari Carrier Skill Bonuses:
50% bonus to Capital Energy and Shield transfer range per level
5% bonus to all Shield resistances per level

Nidhoggur:
Minmatar Carrier Skill Bonuses:
50% bonus to Capital Shield and Armor transfer range per level
5% bonus to Shield and Armor transfer amount per level


Each of the carriers have a different bonus in regards to their racial bonus, so why shouldnt the gallente have a damage bonus seeing as they are meant to be the king of drones in eve?

Dionisius
Gallente
the muppets
RED.OverLord
Posted - 2007.10.25 22:08:00 - [775]
 

What some of the nerf-the-carrier defenders forget is that,

a) Not everyone spend RL money to get isk either by selling gtc's or other meens.
b) And not everyone buys "pre-trained" chars.

I kinda happen to pay my accounts 15€ each.
I don't buy isk.
I play to have fun.
And me, like many other players happen to be training and in the process of spending countless ISKs aquired with hours of ratting and trading, for a Carrier.

So its a bit natural that some of us get a bit angry at some changes that will completely nulify the usefullness of that particular ship.

I happen to be training for one because its a ship i like, like the vaga i trained for, like the megathron, like the astarte and damnation's that i will train for in the future... and after watching this i really hope they don't get nerfed to hell aswell.

So not all of us are in the same bag of ISK or Carrier account buyers.Evil or Very Mad


Traderra
Posted - 2007.10.25 22:20:00 - [776]
 

Nerf motherships not carriers.. carriers are fine. 20+ drones plus immunity to EW make them low sec gods. We all know this is the real reason for the nurf... so why are carriers even on the chopping block when this really boils down to motherships pwning in low sec?

You want to make this easy.. stop motherships from entering .4-.1 space .. keep them in 0.0 where they at least can get hit by interdictor bubbles their and even the odds for people. Carrier can easily get dampened and scramed like its nothing.. a capital ship crumbles to the almighty power of a frigate... lol.. and you want to nerf it????! Take away its drones and it becomes utterly even more useless then it is now.

In fact while your nerfing the mothership from low sec space.. give the carrier some kind of boost cause its 1 step from pointless already. NERF carrier.. where did this even come from?? Do devs proposing these changes even use carriers in pvp??? I really think this came about because people cried on forums about getting ganked in .4 by motherships. Motherships in low sec can simply jump out any time they feel the odds stack against them.. all the uber pwn benefits with none of the negative. I agree the mmothership is overkill. Don't penalize the carrier for that too. The problem isn't the drone amount its EW immunity on motherships.

Clerence Thomas
Black Lotus Heavy Industries
Ethereal Dawn
Posted - 2007.10.25 22:22:00 - [777]
 

Originally by: Dionisius
What some of the nerf-the-carrier defenders forget is that,

a) Not everyone spend RL money to get isk either by selling gtc's or other meens.
b) And not everyone buys "pre-trained" chars.

I kinda happen to pay my accounts 15€ each.
I don't buy isk.
I play to have fun.
And me, like many other players happen to be training and in the process of spending countless ISKs aquired with hours of ratting and trading, for a Carrier.

So its a bit natural that some of us get a bit angry at some changes that will completely nulify the usefullness of that particular ship.

I happen to be training for one because its a ship i like, like the vaga i trained for, like the megathron, like the astarte and damnation's that i will train for in the future... and after watching this i really hope they don't get nerfed to hell aswell.

So not all of us are in the same bag of ISK or Carrier account buyers.Evil or Very Mad




Indeed. I'm also in the group that plays hard, though I do sell isk - kinda required due to lack of RL $$. I play to have fun. I accept that players will be creative in trying to deny me that fun, and this is an element that CCP encourages. I've played the same character, no alts, no character buying, for over 4 years. Because of my play style the proposed nerf wouldn't have seriously affected me. However, to not speak up about such a stupid nerf to the class would be to tacitly accept a violation of the ship. Furthermore we find out, through interaction with CCP that it doesn't even address the problems/changes they are proposing. This just doesn't sit right. This must be answered and an amicable resolution worked out.

Ikthorn Balhar
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2007.10.25 22:30:00 - [778]
 

Originally by: Clerence Thomas

Okay, so you don't have a point? :P *shrug* More or less you see a problem where I don't. That's where we are on that one.


Ignoring the point I am making doesn't mean it is not valid. Nice try though.

Originally by: Clerence Thomas

I take it you haven't been sniped on the way to market across the .4 boarder in an itty v by a solo sniper? Or in your frigate? I'm simply saying that the smartbombing MS isn't really much different. Just a different approach - as such I see no problems with it. For the sake of openness, i've been on the bad end of a solo gank battleship, haven't seen a smart bomb MS camp. It's just dirty pirate play.


Yep, I have been sniped several times during my carebear days. The difference is that you can take out a sniping BS very easily, with two ships: one cover-ops to get you within range, and a close-range dps boat. You need a full-blown gang to take out a smartbombing carrier, and a well-organized fleet to take out a MS in low-sec. See the difference?

Originally by: Clerence Thomas
It does to a pirate. I did stipulate that it wasn't a full dress military gang, but it is technically a gang.


Right. Arguing about minutiae still doesn't invalidate the point that carriers/motherships should require more than a single cyno alt to survive an attack.

Originally by: Clerence Thomas
No.The warfare link modules aren't support, they are command. Traditionally the carrier is the command ship of it's group. The transfer range and logistics modules came out in an earlier round of carrier hate/role change. They need to go away. As to the ship maint bay - it's a classic scifi extension of the carrier.


Traditionally, carriers also have an entire support fleet when deployed, effectively protecting it from danger. By themselves, they have very little offensive capability; they're there to provide the fleet commanders with fighter squadrons which are then assigned to their targets as they see fit. See what I did there?

Originally by: Clerence Thomas
Force projection. Carriers are the long range artillery of the sea(space). They project firepower(DPS) out away from themselves. DPS is nessesary if you are going to project DPS.


They're supposed to be a floating base away from the home territory. This does not mean that they should themselves be spearheading the attack, but rather be the base of operations for the group.
That's where the clone bay and ship hangar comes into play.

Originally by: Clerence Thomas
Actually, they were, but rather then make a new support ship...
-snip- we talk too much


We have carriers, and we have motherships. Which one should be a logistics boat, and the other more geared towards direct engagement? Right now, aside from the price difference and the obvious bonuses, it seems carriers are little more than the poor-man's version of a mothership, and both need to be adjusted to fit their role, which no one seems to want.

Originally by: Clerence Thomas
Sure they can - remove the #$%@#$@%@# logistics crap and make them real carriers. :) Then add logistics ships.


*sigh*

Ikthorn Balhar
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2007.10.25 22:42:00 - [779]
 

Originally by: Dionisius
What some of the nerf-the-carrier defenders forget is that,

a) Not everyone spend RL money to get isk either by selling gtc's or other meens.
b) And not everyone buys "pre-trained" chars.


I totally agree with what you are saying. I never implied that everyone who's complaining about the carrier changes did that, only that some of the very vocal ones did, specially because it's more than just a nerf to the ship class they like; it's a blow to a costly real-life money investment.

Originally by: Dionisius

I kinda happen to pay my accounts 15€ each.
I don't buy isk.
I play to have fun.
And me, like many other players happen to be training and in the process of spending countless ISKs aquired with hours of ratting and trading, for a Carrier.



Same. I'm in the process of training for capital ships as well, always aware that a nerf might be coming. Heck, the Eos is getting a heck of a nerf very soon (drone bandwith, anyone); guess who's been training for an Eos?

Originally by: Dionisius
So its a bit natural that some of us get a bit angry at some changes that will completely nulify the usefullness of that particular ship.


Depends on what you define 'usefulness'. It'd still be one heck of a supporting ship.

Originally by: Dionisius
I happen to be training for one because its a ship i like, like the vaga i trained for, like the megathron, like the astarte and damnation's that i will train for in the future... and after watching this i really hope they don't get nerfed to hell aswell.



Yes, but why do you like it? Because it's pretty? Big? What do you see yourself doing with a carrier? Do you see yourself in a fleet support role, remote-repping/boosting mates, assigning fighters, carrying spare ships and supplies, or do you want to be at the front lines, pounding away at the enemy?
The ship classes you stated above are (with the exception of the Damnation) high DPS/close rang ships, so I imagine you like to be on top of the action. Chances are you would not be training for an Oneiros (which is a logistics ship).
See what I mean?

Originally by: Dionisius

So not all of us are in the same bag of ISK or Carrier account buyers.Evil or Very Mad


I never implied that. I specifically said that some were, so to me, their whines about carrier changes are complete crap. Big difference.

XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp
IT Alliance
Posted - 2007.10.25 22:43:00 - [780]
 

Edited by: XoPhyte on 25/10/2007 22:47:37
Originally by: Ikthorn Balhar
Yep, I have been sniped several times during my carebear days. The difference is that you can take out a sniping BS very easily, with two ships: one cover-ops to get you within range, and a close-range dps boat. You need a full-blown gang to take out a smartbombing carrier, and a well-organized fleet to take out a MS in low-sec. See the difference?




Yep, one costs 100 mil and only represents 35 mil lost after insurance and only takes a 2months to get into. A carrier costs 2 billion for ship + fittings, its not worth insuring and takes nearly a year to train for. I absolutely see the difference.

And to take out a smartbombing carrier you can use 1 crow to scram from 20km, and 2 -3 battleships to do the damage, pretty tough Rolling Eyes

I agree taking out a MS in low sec is a lot more difficult, but who said taking down a 20 billion dollar ship should be easy? (By the way, I don't agree with motherships terrorizing low sec anyway, they belong in 0.0, not low sec).


Pages: first : previous : ... 22 23 24 25 [26] 27 28 29 30 ... : 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