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 : ... 23 24 25 26 [27] 28 29 30 31 ... : last (38)

Author Topic

Das Lol
Gallente
Internet Space Fighters
Posted - 2007.10.25 22:46:00 - [781]
 

Originally by: Ikthorn Balhar

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


*sigh*


When will you types realize that nobody trains for 8 months and spends 2B ISK to fly a dolled-up logistics cruiser that can't use a gate?

Ikkajo
Minmatar
Illudium Space Products
Posted - 2007.10.25 22:47:00 - [782]
 

I have one Gallente carrier/dread pilot alt and a second on the way. These guys operate in low-sec in an anti-pie role, so no large fleet stuff - just small gangs of around 10 or so pilots. I'd like to see more details of specifics of this upcoming buff to carrier capabilities. The ability to customise to give better abilities in a specific area sounds really promising.

What I'd really like to see is basically a hull with jump drive from which we can then fit stuff. No hangar, no cargohold, no drone bay. Then have a set of modules that allow it to take on one specific role. There are several good suggestions I've read in this thread - especially a specific "core module slot" idea that was way back around page . In addition, some modules that effect core capabilities like jump range would be great too. Going with a little of everything means you basically end up with what you have now, but if you customised to a specific role, it would give the current capability for that role an additional 25% boost.

Hysidee
Warped Mining
Posted - 2007.10.25 22:52:00 - [783]
 

Edited by: Hysidee on 25/10/2007 22:54:00
Originally by: Ikkajo
I have one Gallente carrier/dread pilot alt and a second on the way. These guys operate in low-sec in an anti-pie role, so no large fleet stuff - just small gangs of around 10 or so pilots. I'd like to see more details of specifics of this upcoming buff to carrier capabilities. The ability to customise to give better abilities in a specific area sounds really promising.

What I'd really like to see is basically a hull with jump drive from which we can then fit stuff. No hangar, no cargohold, no drone bay. Then have a set of modules that allow it to take on one specific role. There are several good suggestions I've read in this thread - especially a specific "core module slot" idea that was way back around page . In addition, some modules that effect core capabilities like jump range would be great too. Going with a little of everything means you basically end up with what you have now, but if you customised to a specific role, it would give the current capability for that role an additional 25% boost.


if this sort of thing was implemented so that modules were fitted to determine what role a carrier/mothership had personnaly i'd prefer it if it was done via a system similar to the rigs, but so that they dont replace the rigs option and also so that they arent destroyed when they're removed.

Ikthorn Balhar
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2007.10.25 22:56:00 - [784]
 

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

... stuff ...

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?


Please show me where I stated that the Gallente carrier and mothership should not have a damage bonus?
What I did say was that the common bonuses between all races were primarily for fleet support, like this one:

50% bonus to Capital Shield and Armor transfer range per level

Just because the Gallente carrier and mothership have a fighter damage bonus does not mean that *all* of the carrier-class ships should be considered fighter pwnmobiles. Does that make it clearer?

Ikthorn Balhar
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2007.10.25 23:02:00 - [785]
 

Originally by: Das Lol
Originally by: Ikthorn Balhar

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


*sigh*


When will you types realize that nobody trains for 8 months and spends 2B ISK to fly a dolled-up logistics cruiser that can't use a gate?


I agree with what you said. I am training Logistics to 4 because it's a pre-req to get in an Eos. I don't want to get in a logistics cruiser like the Oneiros, because it's not what I want to do. If my gang needs me to, I will, but it's not something I'm volunteering to do.

The difference is that CCP defined the roles of the Logistics class properly. You know what you will be doing when you get in one because, well, they can't really do anything else. Carriers, on the other hand, were poorly-implemented from the beginning, and now CCP is trying to go back and 'fix' them, and no one wants them to, because "nobody trains for 8 months and spends 2B ISK to fly a dolled-up logistics cruiser that can't use a gate".

See what I mean?Laughing

Das Lol
Gallente
Internet Space Fighters
Posted - 2007.10.25 23:10:00 - [786]
 

Edited by: Das Lol on 25/10/2007 23:11:01
Well, at least the latest devblog indicates we'll get a choice whether or not we want to be nice and use them what they were 'meant' for.

Hysidee
Warped Mining
Posted - 2007.10.25 23:11:00 - [787]
 

Edited by: Hysidee on 25/10/2007 23:12:36
Originally by: Ikthorn Balhar


Please show me where I stated that the Gallente carrier and mothership should not have a damage bonus?




Originally by: Ikthorn Balhar

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



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.



Obviously if they're not meant to be doing dps they shouldnt have a damage bonus....

Gridwalker
Amarr
Divine Power.
KIA Alliance
Posted - 2007.10.25 23:27:00 - [788]
 

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

... stuff ...

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?


Please show me where I stated that the Gallente carrier and mothership should not have a damage bonus?
What I did say was that the common bonuses between all races were primarily for fleet support, like this one:

50% bonus to Capital Shield and Armor transfer range per level

Just because the Gallente carrier and mothership have a fighter damage bonus does not mean that *all* of the carrier-class ships should be considered fighter pwnmobiles. Does that make it clearer?


And we keep saying that the following bonuses are ALSO common between ALL of the carriers:

Can deploy 1 additional Fighter per level
200% bonus to Fighter control range

And since you don't like the Thanatos, here is the description from the Archon:

"The Archon was commissioned by the Amarr Navy to act as a personnel and fighter carrier. The order to create the ship came as part of a unilateral initiative issued by Navy Command in the wake of Emperor Kor-Azor's assassination. Sporting the latest in fighter command interfacing technology and possessing characteristically strong defenses, the Archon is a powerful aid in any engagement."

Where in this description do you see "primarily as a logistics ship"?

Well, I like the Thanatos, so here is its full description:

"Sensing the need for a more moderately-priced version of the Nyx, Federation Navy authorities commissioned the design of the Thanatos. 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."

The Nidhoggur talks about "...created for nothing less than all-out warfare." and the Chimera says "...to act as a fighter carrier..."

Where in ANY of the descriptions of these carriers does it say ANYTHING about being a logistics ship? Yet all talk about their role being fighter carriers and/or for all-out warfare.

This is the point I'm trying to push. Yes, they all have logistics capabilities, but they also ALL have fighter bonuses and their descriptions support being fighter platforms and strongly suggest that their intended purpose is to contribute DPS to the fight.

I'm beginning to think both of us are arguing this point just for the sake of arguing. ;-)

-Grid

Ikthorn Balhar
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2007.10.25 23:34:00 - [789]
 

Edited by: Ikthorn Balhar on 25/10/2007 23:36:27
Originally by: Hysidee
Edited by: Hysidee on 25/10/2007 23:12:36

Originally by: Ikthorn Balhar

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



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.




I like how you cherry-picked a few lines from my posts, and ignored the context. I specifically discussed the damage bonus of the Gallente ships, and how it was not meant to be a class-wide bonus but a specific racial bonus:

Originally by: Ikthorn Balhar

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.


The post continues on to discuss the other bonuses on the carrier class that are predominantly oriented towards support, and my other posts go into further detail in discussing these details.

Originally by: Hysidee

Obviously if they're not meant to be doing dps they shouldnt have a damage bonus....



I believe you're either playing at being dense, or you're purposely trying to twist my posts.
The damage bonus stays exactly the same, since it would affect the fighters that would be assigned to fleet members.

Like I said, show me where I specifically stated that the Gallente carrier and mothership should not have a damage bonus?

Edit: Fixed improper quote spots

010131030201102
Posted - 2007.10.25 23:39:00 - [790]
 

The biggest problem people see is that If I have 5 fighters assigned to me I am not using the drones I usually use.

This nerf is another scheme to reduce lag while simultaneously emphasizing the multiplayer aspect of EVE.

Lazuran
Gallente
Aliastra
Posted - 2007.10.25 23:43:00 - [791]
 

Edited by: Lazuran on 25/10/2007 23:44:55
Originally by: Ikthorn Balhar
Carriers, on the other hand, were poorly-implemented from the beginning, and now CCP is trying to go back and 'fix' them, and no one wants them to, because "nobody trains for 8 months and spends 2B ISK to fly a dolled-up logistics cruiser that can't use a gate".

See what I mean?Laughing


If they were poorly implemented from the beginning, they could have been nerfed much earlier. Instead they were buffed not too long ago. This proves well that neither CCP nor the players thought they were poorly implemented. I refuse to accept that CCP believes this now (after what, 2.5 years with Carriers?), just because so many people use Carriers today.

The reason for the nerf is that CCP doesn't like Carriers being widely used (due to lag or because they as a standard fleet ship are too strong for new players to face) and that's not a good reason. They will do anything to prevent people from using them as much as now and this is going to **** off a lot of players.

Expect this to be the new strategy of CCP to deal with "endgame" players. They will nerf everything that is good enough for people to strive for as soon as many players reach those goals and introduce new ship types that make large parts of your SP obsolete. Just so the new players can catch up faster and to keep providing long-term goals for older players as well (if they can deal with their current "solowtfpwnmobiles" being nerfed).




Ikthorn Balhar
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2007.10.25 23:57:00 - [792]
 

Originally by: Gridwalker


Lots of stuff....




Maybe I should use a list format, since it seems no one is actually using their head.

* Carriers are superb support platforms, thanks to their class bonuses for gang modules and triage units

* Having a common bonus among the entire class for an extra fighter per level and drone range does not mean the class itself should be a taken as OMGWTFBBQPWN damage dealer, rather than what the description itself says: fighter carrier

* The damage bonus that a single racial carrier class gets should not be interpreted as a global modifier for the entire class role.

Does that make it simpler to understand?

Ikthorn Balhar
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2007.10.26 00:11:00 - [793]
 

Originally by: Lazuran
Edited by: Lazuran on 25/10/2007 23:44:55
If they were poorly implemented from the beginning, they could have been nerfed much earlier. Instead they were buffed not too long ago. This proves well that neither CCP nor the players thought they were poorly implemented. I refuse to accept that CCP believes this now (after what, 2.5 years with Carriers?), just because so many people use Carriers today.


I think you're partially right. The buff was (I believe) to encourage more people to use carriers actively, but it worked out 'too well'. About a year ago, I had seen maybe one or two carriers in action in 0.0. Now, it seems you can trip on one if you're not looking when you undock in low-sec (I'm exaggerating, but you get my driftSmile).
I don't believe CCP was ready for the explosion in the numbers of carrier pilots, nor the scale in which they have been used in the recent conflicts, and as so, they have to put mechanisms in place to 'control' this.

Originally by: Lazuran
The reason for the nerf is that CCP doesn't like Carriers being widely used (due to lag or because they as a standard fleet ship are too strong for new players to face) and that's not a good reason. They will do anything to prevent people from using them as much as now and this is going to **** off a lot of players.


That would make sense,although I'm not sure they're hellbent on doing so; otherwise they wouldn't backpedal from the changed as quickly as they did.

Originally by: Lazuran
Expect this to be the new strategy of CCP to deal with "endgame" players. They will nerf everything that is good enough for people to strive for as soon as many players reach those goals and introduce new ship types that make large parts of your SP obsolete. Just so the new players can catch up faster and to keep providing long-term goals for older players as well (if they can deal with their current "solowtfpwnmobiles" being nerfed).


I think you might be right, as bad as it may seem. I mean, the carrier and dread pilots now will be the titan-capable players a year down the road. That's why CCP had to bring out the Marauders and Black Ops class; to add a little more choice to the long-term player and to entice the newer players with somewhat more achievable goals. I expect both of these new classes to get nerfed 6 months down the line; it's just a matter of time.

BTW, nice sig. Laughing

Sigras
Gallente
Conglomo
Posted - 2007.10.26 00:29:00 - [794]
 

Originally by: Gridwalker
And we keep saying that the following bonuses are ALSO common between ALL of the carriers:

Can deploy 1 additional Fighter per level
200% bonus to Fighter control range

And since you don't like the Thanatos, here is the description from the Archon:

"The Archon was commissioned by the Amarr Navy to act as a personnel and fighter carrier. The order to create the ship came as part of a unilateral initiative issued by Navy Command in the wake of Emperor Kor-Azor's assassination. Sporting the latest in fighter command interfacing technology and possessing characteristically strong defenses, the Archon is a powerful aid in any engagement."

Where in this description do you see "primarily as a logistics ship"?

Well, I like the Thanatos, so here is its full description:

"Sensing the need for a more moderately-priced version of the Nyx, Federation Navy authorities commissioned the design of the Thanatos. 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."

The Nidhoggur talks about "...created for nothing less than all-out warfare." and the Chimera says "...to act as a fighter carrier..."

Where in ANY of the descriptions of these carriers does it say ANYTHING about being a logistics ship? Yet all talk about their role being fighter carriers and/or for all-out warfare.

This is the point I'm trying to push. Yes, they all have logistics capabilities, but they also ALL have fighter bonuses and their descriptions support being fighter platforms and strongly suggest that their intended purpose is to contribute DPS to the fight . . .

-Grid



i couldnt agree more. the long ahd short of it is that these ships are not carriers, they are capital logistics ships. basically, CCP devs made a ship which was intended to be used as a logistical support ship, and CCP marketing looked at the stats and not the intended purpose and said "hey, lets call it a carrier and give it this description" (see above)

does the fact that eve players are inventive and find new ways to use old ships mean that the devs should make each ship ONLY able to do one thing?

just because i found a sweet way to fly my ship doesn't mean you should reward my ingenuity with a nerf, but that you should come out with something to counter it.

if this keeps happening we must make an award ceremony saying "congratulations, you found an awesome and unorthodox way to fly your ship, so as your reward . . . were going to nerf it beyone recognition" thanks for the reward CCP way to keep your players coming up with new ideas

Ztrain
Versatech Co.
Blade.
Posted - 2007.10.26 03:10:00 - [795]
 

Originally by: CCP Zulupark
We have stated that we want more time to work on our ideas, and you can be certain - as always - that we present them to you at earliest possibility.

You basically have a few things that Carriers can do

  • Launch drones and fighers equal to (Drone skill)+(carrier skill)+(Active Drone Control Units)

  • Use capital ship maintenance array 500,000 m3

  • Use capital Corp hanger 10,000 m3

  • Use Capital Drone Bay 80,000 m3


This is in addition to their remote rep bonus blah blah. Remove these modules and make them each a Capital command module. Each capital command module is a high slot item and have each carrier and mom have a 99% reduction in blah to allow them to be fit.

Now since their are 4 modules you can kind of fit all of these items at the same time if you want to. But you will only have room for one remote rep or instead of a remote rep you could have one smart bomb etc. If you want to have smart bombs neuts etc then that's fine but you sacrifice the other modules.

If your a drone combat carrier then you'd fill your highs with a drone control units and a drone bay.

If your using your carrier for hauling you may use 1 drone bay for protection a cloak and 3 maintenance array's etc.

Idea for mother ships increase the high slots to 6 8 or 5. Not sure would have to think about that. But add the ship bonus increases Capital command modules by 3. That would allow a Mothership to get back to close to it's original potentials but still give the pilot the flexibility and force a choice that you seem to want us all to have to deal with.

Z

lust slave
Posted - 2007.10.26 03:50:00 - [796]
 

Well at least my carrier that I've been training skills on for a year can at least still look pretty. I still can't believe anyone would think a carrier is overpowered. A battle cruiser can tank 10 fighters for 15 minutes the whole time killing my 20 million isk fighters. What person in their right mind would need to make them weaker? Let me launch as many fighters and drones as I can carry. If any nerf is needed then make the drone bay smaller.

Yet again another year of EVE wasted. Who's idea was this? Can I have a phone number to call so I can talk to you about what really needs done?

Help me understand!

SSgt Sniper
Gallente
SSgt Sniper Temporary corp
Posted - 2007.10.26 04:10:00 - [797]
 

Originally by: CCP Abathur

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



Rename manure to cologne and I got news for you--- it'll still stink to high heaven.

If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I'm supposed to think it's a cat? Bull****.

Jonus Rath
The Collective
B O R G
Posted - 2007.10.26 04:13:00 - [798]
 

Edited by: Jonus Rath on 26/10/2007 04:22:54

I love the changes the dev's are proposing !

Nerf everything what we like to fly, what we just love as it is, change them all to boring ships, complicate your codes with more useless scripts which noone will use, because your client does not have enough yet to deal with, the servers are running at 10% during fleet op-s at most.. Exciting times ahead.

Oh guys and Don't even try to be happy for Kronos, they'll be nerfed too, once you've trained up and saved the isk for it (remember my words).

It will be much easier to leave this game alone as now I'm too addicted to it.
Thanks CCP, you make me wake up to RL! Aren't you hired Dr. Phil BTW?
Please, keep up the good work and don't listen to your hardcore playerbase, they need a break the most!

Oh and of course, please don't play your own game, only in controlled enviroment. It would be dangerous and unhealthy for us if you realize what keeps us playing this game.


Gridwalker
Amarr
Divine Power.
KIA Alliance
Posted - 2007.10.26 04:28:00 - [799]
 

Originally by: lust slave
Well at least my carrier that I've been training skills on for a year can at least still look pretty.


Hey, we haven't seen the final revamp of the models for Rev 3 yet. Let's not hold our breath!

Seriously, maybe it is time to be a little less serious. I'm pretty guilty of being a bit harsh in my criticism of CCP's handling of this issue. I think we all have good reason for being pretty nervous about it.

Perhaps what we really need to do is ask the developers to shelve their thoughts on carriers at the moment, and wait for rev 3 to come up. Give it two or three months, and let's see how things play out.

We still don't know what the new GUI is going to look like. There is supposedly a new drone interface, and we don't know how that might affect things. We have no idea what sort of improvements to lag in large battles might be seen. Most importantly, we have no idea what affect the new ships are going to have on the role of carriers.

And for the record, I do like the idea of being able to tune your carrier by the use of fittings. It does make a lot of sense, and can allow pilots to determine whether they want to use their carriers as fighter platforms, or logistics ships, or something in between or even entirely different.

-Grid, who finally got around to taking his medication and feels MUCH better now!

Okkie2
Posted - 2007.10.26 05:36:00 - [800]
 

Edited by: Okkie2 on 26/10/2007 05:36:49
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
Originally by: Fedaykin

And this one goes to CCP

As 24 pages of post and 98% of members dont approve your change. As a community, paying members and carriers pilots, dont you think we should have a word on those kind of change ? Stop playing on test server and come in the real joy of 0.0 . Stop playing with our toys and fix the damn servers so we can actualy fight in a fleet op.


We are still reading this thread and reading your comments, we've posted two blogs, both asking for community feedback. The latter blog contained quite a lot of information players had been asking for.

We have stated that we want more time to work on our ideas, and you can be certain - as always - that we present them to you at earliest possibility.


Can you please first explain what's exactly wrong with carriers ?

If i'm in 0.0 and see one flying around i get a few buddy's and start chasing it (without our own carrier) Usually it either flees, calls in reinforcements or is killed. All three sound actually pretty good to me. The hauling should be fixed by the jumpdrive freighters (but aparently they will be worse haulers then carriers, so maybe have a look at them ?? ) Carriers don't do much damage , have a great tank and only work ok when in a gang and reading in your blogs i would say that's exactly how you want them to be.

Greenwing
SuX ltd.
Posted - 2007.10.26 05:47:00 - [801]
 

Edited by: Greenwing on 26/10/2007 05:50:50
Sad
laggy connection

Greenwing
SuX ltd.
Posted - 2007.10.26 05:49:00 - [802]
 

Edited by: Greenwing on 26/10/2007 05:49:46
Originally by: Angel Lightbringer
Hmm.. First, No, I am no capital pilot yet,


Yup, noticed that Wink
Quote:

I see this from a different point of view. This should not prevent you from reading right... And second, I have been victim first-hand of said pwn-mobile, a solo carrier pilot jumping to more safer space to hunt neutrals and farm killmail for those OH SO GOOD killboards.



Probably either a low-sec MOM or you were alone against a multi billion isk ship. Both cases should not result in the kill of the carrier/MOM. Get yourself 4 or 5 buddy's, some dampeners and scramblers and you've got yourself a dead carrier (a MOM will need some more effort because of it's ew immunity but a 20-bill ship should not be easy to take down)

The low-sec MOM IS a problem, but looking at this thread most people agree with that (either make MOMs/Titans vulnerable to EW in lowsec or don't hacve them enter lowsec at all)

Quote:

When you have a suggestion, post it. A simple 'no' with a lot of crap as insults it worthless, like the majority of the posts I've seen so far, strangely only those against the change with no other ideas.



Actually if you read the posts you'll notice a lot of posters really are trying to find other solutions (as well as trying to find the real problem Very Happy )

Originally by: Mag's
Edited by: Mag''s on 25/10/2007 15:34:40



Originally by: CCP Zulupark
Originally by: Fedaykin

Post.


We are still reading this thread and reading your comments, we've posted two blogs, both asking for community feedback. The latter blog contained quite a lot of information players had been asking for.

We have stated that we want more time to work on our ideas, and you can be certain - as always - that we present them to you at earliest possibility.


Yes, this is true, but see it from our side.
Until your original Blog, no one thought there was an issue with Carriers or Motherships (except MS in low sec, but hey it's low sec).

You made a blog telling us there was an issue, but not actually telling us what the issue was.
Then after the thread reached, what I guess you would call 'Epic' status, you gave out another blog stopping the change and giving us 3 months.

Now, we are in the positiion of giving you ideas, to a problem no one thought was there, for you to cherry pick out the ideas, then mold them into a change most closly suited to the original idea.
It's how it looks, from my side of the fence.

That's why alot are still feeling the way they are.
Sorry to say this, but they don't trust a word you are saying.

That's my take on it.


Not only yours, probably most players look at it like this (at least the people i talk to do)

I don't mind nerfing s ahip because it's too good, but looking at e.g. killboards i fail to see the solopwn mobile the carrier is according to the devs.

Piccalo
SUNDERING
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2007.10.26 06:22:00 - [803]
 

This is total B***S*** and ill tell you why

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

Ok first of all people park them at stations and Starbases because only thing they have for defense is there drones, and thous are out being delegated to there fleet members. Second there highly extensive ships and ummm susceptible to smaller ships or any ship for that madder when all the drones are being delegated out.

2. "Damage dealing (Small scale PVP, Capital PVP, Starbase Warfare)
Logistics (Small scale PVP, Capital PVP, Starbase Warfare)
Support (as in bringing along spare modules and ships behind enemy lines)
PvE (Ratting, missions, complexes etc.)
0.0 Transporting
POS fueling
If you can do all that (and probably a lot more) extremely efficiently with a single ship, why would EVE need any others?"

Now with the changes and new ships coming out in Revs 3 half that list wont madder. For one with jump freighters the carrier will be the last ship to use for 0.0 transporting, and POS fueling. Second for now a days star base warfare a carrier is a must have. I don't know about you but every POS iv ever been in to take down, a carrier is right there reping just like is suppose to. Thirdly with the new heavy dicters coming in to play small scale pvp for a carrier will now be hard for a carrier to dill with on ones own.

3. "you have to fit the ship hangar to get the functionality, but offer something up in exchange(like, a slot)."

Now you say to us not only are we going to cut your solo drone control but we are going to take slots from you as well. You may as well take the hole ship out of the game, start over from scratch and give me my skill points back to put where i can get some good from them.

You want to make it hard to kill small ships try this make it hard for fighter drones to shoot them slow then down a bit more, give them less tracking, and one big thing you can do, is make it to where a carrier can only use Fighter drones. This i can live with.

Shinzann
Dead poets society
The Laughing Men
Posted - 2007.10.26 06:50:00 - [804]
 

Originally by: WardogX
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.


I like this idea!

Ozstar
Black Rise Angels
Posted - 2007.10.26 09:20:00 - [805]
 

Edited by: Ozstar on 26/10/2007 09:40:07
Quote:
Increase teamplay and make the low skillpoint, non-capital pilots more valuable in fleet combat.


Two things stand out in this proposed nerf.

1. CCP are trying to level the playing field between veterans and new players. Having made customers spend 12-14 months training for a ship your now saying "sorry, the ship you dreamed about is scaring all the new guys, and they feel insignificant when you get your e-peen out."

2. It appears many of the people who work on these nerfs dont have to spend a year training to use the ship, they just press a "give me the required skills" button and hey presto. Then they are act all bewildered by the vehemence displayed by their long-suffering player base when they nerf said takes-forever-to-train-to-combat-readyness ship.

Quote:
... but when the ship is a master of all trades, then it departs from the original design concept.


How is the carrier "master" of all trades, its jack of all trades master of none! It doesnt do much damage, it cant haul that much (thanks to the container nerf) and the drone UI makes drone control hard, not to mention the buggy drone AI.

Seriously. Fix things that ARE BROKEN and not those that will make new players feel all warm and fuzzy when they undock for the first time.

Quote:
As far as combat goes, Imagine 1 carrier versus 1 BS, no reason to ask who would win.


You must be a genius. Your saying that a veteran of 12-14 months shouldn't be able to take on a single battleship (1 month to get in) and win, in a ship that costs 10 times the amount? Are you deranged or an alt of someone working on this nerf?

Oz
- who is losing faith in the design decision makers

Kappas.
Galaxy Punks
Posted - 2007.10.26 09:48:00 - [806]
 

Edited by: Kappas. on 26/10/2007 09:49:23
First off, I've not read the whole thread as it's a bit too long atm, so sorry if I'm restating points already made.

Right, first off, don't you think a ship that takes over a year to train for should have these abilities?
Don't you think it's wrong that a 10,000isk frigate can lock down and bump a carrier away from POS/Stations?

You say it can kill frigates, etc, but have you ever seen how fast some of these frigates (both t1 and t2) along with t1 and t2 variants of destroyers can actually go? They have no problems outrunning fighters or any other drone for that matter.

I find it ironic that you say you want carriers to be at the front lines, but what is the point in taking them to the front lines since: They can't really control enough fighters to kill 1 BS or even a BC with decent skills, the cap remote rep takes is too much that if primary fire switches to you after a little while, you're ****ed since you don't have much left to run you're own tank on, the lock time on other ships is insane, especially if you happen to be damped by a t1 frigate/cruiser or permajammed by t1 frigate/cruiser.

Edit: also the fact you're effectively giving someone over 100m isk which they don't have to worry about if it goes up in smoke.

To sum up: boost other ships and stop nerfing something that takes so ****ing long to train for!

Dazenil
Caldari
Mercenaries of Andosia
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2007.10.26 10:22:00 - [807]
 

Edited by: Dazenil on 26/10/2007 10:24:44
Edited by: Dazenil on 26/10/2007 10:24:28
Originally by: Shinzann
Originally by: WardogX
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.


I like this idea!


/signd
I like this Idea too Very Happy

but CCP will never do it -
they have new 3d grafics to install - "its more important then the core of the game" +
Its Easyer for them To just Nurf Ships Rather Then work for some time to Create More Capitals... Confused

Dionisius
Gallente
the muppets
RED.OverLord
Posted - 2007.10.26 10:32:00 - [808]
 

Originally by: Ikthorn Balhar


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?




Well let me just answer a few of your questions, as the other points you stated i agree with you.

The reason i am training for a carrier and my liking of it is due to the fact that it suits my combat style, i could have gone either minmatar or amarr, both with great carriers aswell but i have a soft spot for my character's race.

Besides having alot of SP's allocated in Drones it was the most logical choice as most gallente ships benefit from some drone bonuses, this carrier has it.

On top of it i happen to like most gallente ships design so yes that influenced my decision.

But mainly i trained for carrier because it suits what i want wich is,

a) Provide some logistical support in remote 0.0 areas where a freighter or transport ship/blockade runner ins't viable.

b) Provide some support in terms of small scale warfare, either by assisting small/med gangs with repair and deploying my fighters or drones against specific targets.

c) Provide capital ship support for large scale engaments.

This is my usefullness for the carriers.

I trained minmatar all the way to hacs just because i use the Vagabond as a raiding ship, i could have gone for the Deimos but it didn't allow me the chance to pick my targets and leave if things didn't go well, aka the extreme mobility in combat that the Vagabond provides.

Eos and damnation are another couple ships that go into small gang warfare wich i like alot too, and i'll be supporting the gangs in those ships either with gang links or trough the tanking/offensive capabilites these ships possess.

That is my use for those ships.Razz

I like to fullfill diferent roles, the carrier is simply my step towards one of them, my worries are that carriers are not that tought when it comes to handle big gangs and no i don't want to go solo in a carrier, but the oportunity to defend myself and perhaps escape if things goes wrong is provided trough drones and fighters, if i can't deploy more than 5 at the time that severely reduces the already tiny chances i would have in such a situation.

Still i will wait and see what CCP brings in terms of new changes, there is already alot of new nice ships and skils in transit to TQ so i'll just wait and see what comes out of all this.

Damned Force
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2007.10.26 10:33:00 - [809]
 

I dont know why, but every time i log on siSi i HATE CCP more and more. tnx for the silent hauling nerf of carriers!

Kagura Nikon
Minmatar
Emptiness.
Posted - 2007.10.26 10:38:00 - [810]
 

Originally by: Das Lol
Originally by: Ikthorn Balhar

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


*sigh*


When will you types realize that nobody trains for 8 months and spends 2B ISK to fly a dolled-up logistics cruiser that can't use a gate?


dotn think you noticed. But ccp want less people to train for carriers. 10k of them in gam e is already too much. 1 per 30 characters is dumb.


Pages: first : previous : ... 23 24 25 26 [27] 28 29 30 31 ... : 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