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 : ... 24 25 26 27 [28] 29 30 31 32 ... : last (38)

Author Topic

Kerfira
Kerfira Corp
Posted - 2007.10.26 11:19:00 - [811]
 

Originally by: Damned Force
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!

For those who don't know what he's talking about, read this thread:
http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=622267&page=1

Seems CCP in their infinite wisdom (and despite recent outcries) are still hellbent on getting carriers (effectively) removed from the game. You can no longer store ships with items in cargo in the ship bay on Sisi Rolling Eyes

Lord Bleu
Darkstorm Command
Ethereal Dawn
Posted - 2007.10.26 12:17:00 - [812]
 

I dont have anything to say that hasnt all ready been said but I'm posting to show my dissatisfaction towards CCP's decision of making the changes to something that cost me a lot of time and ISK to obtain without any kind of compensation such as a skill repec!

I understand there are reasons for these changes but perhaps these should have been thought out well in advance.

Lazuran
Gallente
Aliastra
Posted - 2007.10.26 12:18:00 - [813]
 

Edited by: Lazuran on 26/10/2007 12:31:21
Originally by: Kagura Nikon

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.


The only dumb thing is to put ships in the game and even buff them when you don't want people to fly them.

btw. according to ineve.net, about 1500 of their 53k characters have carrier skills. this is less than 1:30 for the skills only and not all these guys will own carriers, so I assume the 10k figure was an exaggeration (perhaps the number of characters who can "fly" a carrier, not actual carriers ingame or carrier owners).


Damned Force
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2007.10.26 12:39:00 - [814]
 

Edited by: Damned Force on 26/10/2007 12:42:54
Edited by: Damned Force on 26/10/2007 12:40:48
Originally by: Kagura Nikon
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.


Than make the skillbook 30bil worth or something, but to take away for what someone trained a year is simply criminal

And if so many customers fly carriers they have even less right to do this with so many customers


PS: i don't see the feedbacks from CCP. in the time they let us know they don't nerf, was here a lot of devposts, but now? Band of loosers!

Wilfuc Fatburdz
The Capitals' Club
Te-Ka
Posted - 2007.10.26 13:43:00 - [815]
 

Originally by: CCP Zulupark
Hi, I'm Zulupark.

We have tried to get rid of server lag, but can't and have just given up.

Carriers can launch large numbers of fighters, which if they become widely used, especially in frontline group fighting, will crash our servers in the same manner as drones used to before we gimped the drone capacities of all ships.

Accordingly, we have decided to gimp Carriers before they get too popular and the weaknesses of our servers and software are exposed, again.

That is all, kbyethnx.


There. Fixed it for you.

nuclear hamster
Posted - 2007.10.26 13:50:00 - [816]
 

Not in the mood to check... 28 pages to see if i have a repeated idea, so ignore me if it is.

I haven't flown or got a carrier, not the SP's to do so, but i see that -one- problem here is the weapons that the carriers and mother-ships use. Its fighters.

What do non cap ships have in terms of a choice. Lights to pick off frigates. Meds to pick of frigates and cruisers. Heavies to pick off BC's and BS's

Cant there be something similar to add for carriers, different types of fighters? (To my knowledge, the 4 races of fighters are similar in style, save toughness and slight changes in speed)

What i mean by this is there should be different types of fighters so you choose carefully why you equip for the job in hand. Heres a little example:

- Single Seaters - 1/2 size of standard fighters (hold more). go as fast as inties. have firepower of... hammerhead II's or Ogre 1's. Very weak.

- Twin Seaters - Normal Size. Fast as a cruisers. Firepower of 2 Ogre II's. Strength of a frigate

- Crew Operated - double current fighter size. Extremely slow. Extremely Powerful. Extremely strong.

If this effect is already in place, then I'm sorry i wasted your time, as i said, i know nothing about carriers apart from what I've heard and i think this solution will make you choose between loading up with drone MWD boosts for the heavier ones, or weather you go for support equipment and load up with lights.

As another idea, how about to carry the heavier drones, you need to load up with cargo -> drone bay converters? this means that if you want more firepower, you need to reduce the amount of cargo you can have.

Any ... Objection or agreement?

Varrakk
Menace ll Society
Posted - 2007.10.26 13:52:00 - [817]
 

This the place were supposed to complain about the carrier cargo nerf?

G3ghj
Posted - 2007.10.26 13:55:00 - [818]
 

Rabble whine rabble whine rabble.

I belief none of you has played guild wars were there was a a balance update every few month or even weeks.
There were also Chars which were ****ed over in some kind of way but you can allways do something else if you dont like carriers anymore. You are just afraid you cant keep up with your duties with just 1 shiip. And if you dont believe something is broken when nearly everything can be handled by one shipclass then i dont know what else is.
Logistic (POS fuel), RemoteRep (capital sized), own tank (capital sized) and a load of DPS from fighters. And you think 1b (what will be the price for a marauder btw) and some skillpoints, from which most also help other ships, are reason enough so you could stay in your egglaying woolmilkpig?
Sure you have to adapt. But thats what all off you said to the privateers after warnerf and tell every noob who gets ganked in highsec.
Now its your turn to adapt.


Cadiz
Caldari
EXTERMINATUS.
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2007.10.26 13:56:00 - [819]
 

Edited by: Cadiz on 26/10/2007 13:57:00
Originally by: Kerfira
Originally by: Damned Force
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!

For those who don't know what he's talking about, read this thread:
http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=622267&page=1

Seems CCP in their infinite wisdom (and despite recent outcries) are still hellbent on getting carriers (effectively) removed from the game. You can no longer store ships with items in cargo in the ship bay on Sisi Rolling Eyes


Yeah. Haha, oh WOW. Honestly, that, more than any ner***e of their combat capabilities, is putting me to within a hair's breadth of cancelling my accounts. Pretty much the only thing stopping me from doing that is the fact that I would be letting down a lot of my corpmates in doing so who rely on the carrier work of myself & a few other guys to maintain our standard of living out in 0.0, but #$%% I used to fuel POSes entirely by indy back in '05, and I absolutely, totally & utterly REFUSE to go back there.

CCP, if you are going to make me do hours upon hours of incredibly unfun & frustrating work just so we can function on the most rudimentary level out in 0.0, I expect to start being paid by you. Otherwise I'd be much better off picking up a second job and spending the paycheque on, I don't know, more books or something. They don't make me want to break random objects and/or gouge my eyes out.

As for jump freighters? I'm sure my corp will be delighted to wait several months for a few of our guys to train up Freighter V and then lay down a half-dozen dreadnoughts worth of isk just so we can actually, you know, have POSes to live in and whatnot.

ookke
GreenSwarm
Black Legion.
Posted - 2007.10.26 14:08:00 - [820]
 

I guess you could still use an expanded dreadnought for similar hauling capabilities, but somehow I don't think this is the only nerf carriers are going to get.

Cadiz
Caldari
EXTERMINATUS.
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2007.10.26 14:16:00 - [821]
 

Edited by: Cadiz on 26/10/2007 14:16:24
Originally by: ookke
I guess you could still use an expanded dreadnought for similar hauling capabilities, but somehow I don't think this is the only nerf carriers are going to get.

Nothing says love quite like half to one-third the cargo capacity and 20% more midpoints! Woo!

ookke
GreenSwarm
Black Legion.
Posted - 2007.10.26 14:19:00 - [822]
 

Originally by: Cadiz
Edited by: Cadiz on 26/10/2007 14:16:24
Originally by: ookke
I guess you could still use an expanded dreadnought for similar hauling capabilities, but somehow I don't think this is the only nerf carriers are going to get.

Nothing says love quite like half to one-third the cargo capacity and 20% more midpoints! Woo!


Yeah, I'm not saying it's not a nerf, just saying there is a (semi)reasonable work around for this one atleast.

Mack Dorgeans
Camelot Innovations
Posted - 2007.10.26 14:27:00 - [823]
 

CCP, I don't know why you're relying on drone AI so much when clearly it will never be completely functional and bug-free.

Fighters should be player piloted ships. They should be fast and nimble, and able to take out non-capitals, with a heavy bomber class of fighters for group bombing of caps.

Keep drones as AI ships, but make fighters a piloted class. Dead fighter pilots clone to their carrier or mothership and get in a spare fighter if there are any leftover.

Wouldn't that be a lot more fun from a gameplay standpoint than hordes of AI-controlled (read: dumb and buggy) gnats and horseflies? Carriers should get built-in bonuses to grant their fighter pilots, based on the carrier captain's skill. Give carriers and motherships more slots for buffing fighters, and let them act as carriers should -- support ships and home base for their fighter jocks.

Kalli Ope
Posted - 2007.10.26 14:39:00 - [824]
 

Ok , now let me get this straight:

Carriers no longer can store ships with cargo in SMA ...

Well no offence but what (in CCP opinion) are Carriers suposed to do ?

Oh ... "Carrier and Motherships were designed to be a combined effort among corporation members where they rely on the group" ... yea ...now i get it. Well i case u didn't know u're game suffers from EXTREME LAG especialy in larger than 100 man gang. Concidering that the biggest capital fleet was arround 150 that means that "the combined effort" of the gang (with the new carrier nerf regarding drones/fighters) is arround 450 ppl (to efficiantly use thowse carriers - BTW did u think that carriers will be more rarely used after this nerf ? Think again ;) ). Now i simply ask : does u're server can manage this kind of situations OR we will se more petitions responses like "We are vvvvvvv sorry but our server is Ok" more often ... well from my point of view it aint ok with 2 frames / minute ...

BTW: U missed some verry important disadvantage of carriers: LOOOOONG taning time, HUGE costs of modules and RIDICULOUS skillbooks price ... or u didn't forget them ... u didn't mention them un purpose!

And as a side note (also from my simple point of view) ... in the end carriers are suposed to be used how u want it or how any one who owns one wants it ? Just a thought ...

Wilfuc Fatburdz
The Capitals' Club
Te-Ka
Posted - 2007.10.26 14:39:00 - [825]
 

Originally by: Mack Dorgeans
CCP, I don't know why you're relying on drone AI so much when clearly it will never be completely functional and bug-free.

Fighters should be player piloted ships. They should be fast and nimble, and able to take out non-capitals, with a heavy bomber class of fighters for group bombing of caps.

Keep drones as AI ships, but make fighters a piloted class. Dead fighter pilots clone to their carrier or mothership and get in a spare fighter if there are any leftover.

Wouldn't that be a lot more fun from a gameplay standpoint than hordes of AI-controlled (read: dumb and buggy) gnats and horseflies? Carriers should get built-in bonuses to grant their fighter pilots, based on the carrier captain's skill. Give carriers and motherships more slots for buffing fighters, and let them act as carriers should -- support ships and home base for their fighter jocks.



Nice, but you are forgetting that EVE is at heart an economics spreadsheet game. Yours is a good idea if we used joysticks, but we don't, we use calculators. So have you seen how much fighters cost, and are you prepared to see your wallet deducted to the Carrier pilots credit each time you break one? No, I didn't think so.

Mack Dorgeans
Camelot Innovations
Posted - 2007.10.26 14:49:00 - [826]
 

Originally by: Wilfuc Fatburdz
Originally by: Mack Dorgeans
CCP, I don't know why you're relying on drone AI so much when clearly it will never be completely functional and bug-free.

Fighters should be player piloted ships. They should be fast and nimble, and able to take out non-capitals, with a heavy bomber class of fighters for group bombing of caps.

Keep drones as AI ships, but make fighters a piloted class. Dead fighter pilots clone to their carrier or mothership and get in a spare fighter if there are any leftover.

Wouldn't that be a lot more fun from a gameplay standpoint than hordes of AI-controlled (read: dumb and buggy) gnats and horseflies? Carriers should get built-in bonuses to grant their fighter pilots, based on the carrier captain's skill. Give carriers and motherships more slots for buffing fighters, and let them act as carriers should -- support ships and home base for their fighter jocks.



Nice, but you are forgetting that EVE is at heart an economics spreadsheet game. Yours is a good idea if we used joysticks, but we don't, we use calculators. So have you seen how much fighters cost, and are you prepared to see your wallet deducted to the Carrier pilots credit each time you break one? No, I didn't think so.



Ideally, fighters would be owned (and insured) by the corporation. Then it's the corp's decision whether a pilot deserves a seat in a fighter. I think it's high time the code included means for corps or alliances to own/insure ships, if they so desire. Once that's in place, why not have corp-paid cloning fees, etc.? Anything's possible, so long as CCP can find a way (and desire) to code it.

Let's face it: there aren't enough good space games out there. You've got a TV show like Battlestar Galactica that makes people want to fly fighters, and here we have a game that could potentially take advantage of that. Why not give it a shot?

The Economist
Logically Consistent
Posted - 2007.10.26 14:53:00 - [827]
 

Nerfing the ability to store items in stored ships cargos is an interesting approach certainly.

Frankly if that's all you change I'd be overjoyed (though it seems a bit minor for you to stop there).

It is a nerf to the two main ways I use my ship hangar (indy full of isotopes/ammo, and an indy for looting after fights), which is kind of irritating due to the extra time I will therefore have to spend doing logistics (which is amusing since this is aimed at nerfing a carrier's use as a logistics ship heh) to get fuel stocks in the right place etc. Not the end of the world though.

One thing it does make me a little concerned about: capital modules.

With the ship maintenance nerf carriers will be forced to carry the fittings and ammo for their ships in their corp hangars, which on it's own is not a problem. However carriers will also be prevented from having reserve fuel in an indy, which means more fuel in the corp hangar. On top of this most carriers keep one or two extra mods in their hangar, such as an extra cap shield transporter, that sort of thing. All together that's a lot of space taken up.

Now imagine a fleet fight involving capitals on both sides. At the moment looting capital wrecks after such a battle needs to by done by either indies or other caps. With the above items taken into consideration, the average carrier is going to be left with very little cargo space making this somewhat of a nightmare. To mitigate this carriers can have people store their ships in them and switch to haulers from their ship maintenance bays to gather the loot. However with this change the stored ship will need to be emptied (more cargo taken up), then the hauler needs to be emptied again before being stored (it's not practical to have half your fleet stuck in indies 40 jumps from home), which lands us right back where we started in terms of cargo issues.

Like I said interesting approach, just please consider the above complications, and potential headaches that could be caused.

Hunin
Minmatar
Infinity Enterprises
Atlas Alliance
Posted - 2007.10.26 15:43:00 - [828]
 

Problem:

Carriers currently fulfill 3 roles: frontline damage dealer, logistic ship and hauler. CCP wants to nerf carriers. I would suggest picking which 2 roles you want carriers to fulfill. I would like carriers to be frontline damage dealers and logistic ships.

Solution:

1) Keep the changes on Sisi not allowing carriers to hold ships with cargo. Increase the carrier's cargohold by 1.5 times. This will nerf the ability to travel with a industrial (or any other high cargohold ship type) full of cargo in the ship maintanence array but allow the carriers to have multiple capital modules available for refit.

2) Keep the change where carriers can only deploy 5 fighters. Double the damage fighters deal. This will keep the damage inline with current damage amounts and reduce the server lag caused by hundreds of AI controlled fighters on grid.

Princess Jodi
Cutting Edge Incorporated
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2007.10.26 15:44:00 - [829]
 

The reason there are 10,000 Carriers in Eve is because they are FORCED to do roles because no other ship can.

I bet most Carriers are used to haul POS fuels from/to empire. Face it: That is a need for 0.0 alliances, and it needs to be done safely and frequently. With the advent of the Jump Freighter, we will finally have an alternative to using Carriers. At that point, you could remove all the cargo-carrying capabilities of Carrier (as it seems is being done - no more cargo in ships in ship maint arrays.)

The reason Carriers are used instead of Dreads is simply the Jump Range. A Dread can get more cargo space than a Carrier, but requires 25% more jumps. Give us another tool and we'll stop using the Swiss Army Knife.

I want my Carrier to be an Offensive weapon. I'd gladly give up remote repping abilities to make me do more damage. Actually, I'd give up the Ship Maint Bay, the Cargo Hauling and the refitting services for Sensors that can't be jammed by a single frigate and some Warp Core Stabalizer strength.

... I'm still reading the responses here. Believe me, I've got more to say on this subject. Sad

Inflexible
Shokei
Posted - 2007.10.26 15:54:00 - [830]
 

Ok. CCP feels carriers are more popular than they sould be. Actually - they are right.
Carriers are so popular mainly because their hauling abilities. If there is 10000 carriers on TQ, realistic assumption is that less than 10% are actually used in combat. Gimping their ability to move truckloads of goods instantly across entire regions will surely discourage 90% of potential carrier pilots from buying one, without really hurting carrier as support or combat ship. Swiss army knife retains its blade, but it's overused bottle opener got seriously nerfed, making it much less popular. Twisted Evil

Personally, I'd like to have exclusions form this nerf, allowing to load ammo, cap booster charges, probes, bubbles and other combat equipment to be loaded in combat ships. Maybe it would be sufficent to ban only loaded industrials from shipmaints, leaving other ships "as is".

And last thing - CCP, FFS fix the economy, you will find your Capitals Online problem automagically fixed. It is better than nerfs, and it will make game much more enjoyable for everyone.

asdfafad
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2007.10.26 15:58:00 - [831]
 

Originally by: Hunin
Problem:



2) Keep the change where carriers can only deploy 5 fighters. Double the damage fighters deal. This will keep the damage inline with current damage amounts and reduce the server lag caused by hundreds of AI controlled fighters on grid.



dude this is a carrier not a regular ship its suposed to have more than 5 drones out Evil or Very Mad plus u waste the time training for the extra drone modules so STFU Evil or Very Mad

Druadan
Syrus Speculations
Posted - 2007.10.26 16:05:00 - [832]
 

Edited by: Druadan on 26/10/2007 16:05:18
Originally by: CCP Abathur
Edited by: CCP Abathur on 24/10/2007 14:51:23
Originally by: Druadan
I love the idea of being able to beef up one aspect of my carrier, while letting another slide. So I can go in well-balanced with a bit of DPS and replacement ships for a small gang, or I can lose some SMB+RemoteRepping and go in with some devastating firepower, or I can lose firepower/RemoteRepping and carry in replacement ships, or I can lose firepower/SMB and go in with some awesome remote repping. It's a change I really think will be useful.


This is actually a pretty clear picture of what we're looking to do: give choices and provide options.

Quote:
Now, will it be done via a module? If so, will we get an additional highslot to fit this module in?


We're looking at several different options. Modules that affect the ship itself or affect the fighters it launches are one of them. Slot layouts will likely stay the same but we'll examine that as well.

Quote:
Or will it be done via a new carrier/MS-only 'Operations Core' slot, to which we fit Logistics (hauling) Core, or Lolgistics (repping) Core, or Tötalhelldeath (damage) Core, or TheCannonsTheyDoNothing (tanking) Core etc.


Interesting. Another idea is to look at new 'state' modules similar to the siege and triage modes that provide some sort of special bonuses or abilities with offsetting penalties.

What we are looking to do now is not so much a 'nerf' as it is an evolution of the carrier concept.
Thanks for the clarification Abathur, much appreciated. I'm glad my conceptions of the idea are close to the mark, but I can't help but feel a little 'brushed aside' on that last quote there. "Interesting. Another idea..." read just like "Yeah, that's nice, but this is what we're going to do instead...".

What I don't want to see is some seige/triage/industrial core-type module that locks me down while I have this specialisation. That was part of why I suggested the Operations Core slot. The specialisation method needs to be conceptually different to the seige-type modules, which are more deployments than modes of operation. The other reason I suggested the Operations Core slot was because if you make it a seige-type module, it will take up an existing slot, which will absolutely suck as carriers have the right amount of highslots at the moment. The only way to escape that would be to give us an extra high slot, but then that highslot could just be another smartbomb on a lowsec-camping mothership, so that would suck equally as much. So, that's why I proposed the Operations Core: it's conceptually different, jives with the refitting concept so it would be passive and thus not require a spot on the in-space UI, and doesn't require an imbalancing of highslots.

As an aside, some of the venom in this thread is getting ridiculous. This isn't just an extension of the Sunday-through-Tuesday thread about the ridiculous original idea. That was venom I both supported and contributed to. But now we have a three-month gap to talk constructively about what the carrier change can be, or whether we even need a carrier change. Personally I don't believe we do need a carrier change, as they are really quite vulnerable, but the idea of specialisation allowing my to actually improve areas of my ship is really quite exciting. I can finally improve the DPS I bring to the battlefield, or the level of lolgistics I can provide, or the tank I can field.

I will still keep the Carriers Motherships '07 sig, because until this change is over and done with our cause should not in any way wane. So if you care about this change, get this thread bookmarked on your Firefox Bookmarks Toolbar, or your IE7 Links bar, and visit it to keep up with the changes. Even if you don't have any suggestions now, it's important that if you care now, you care in three months time when this is coming to a head, and you care every time you visit this thread from now until then.

Valron Xizor
The Xizor Cartel
Posted - 2007.10.26 16:07:00 - [833]
 

Originally by: G3ghj
Rabble whine rabble whine rabble.

I belief none of you has played guild wars were there was a a balance update every few month or even weeks.
There were also Chars which were ****ed over in some kind of way but you can allways do something else if you dont like carriers anymore. You are just afraid you cant keep up with your duties with just 1 shiip. And if you dont believe something is broken when nearly everything can be handled by one shipclass then i dont know what else is.
Logistic (POS fuel), RemoteRep (capital sized), own tank (capital sized) and a load of DPS from fighters. And you think 1b (what will be the price for a marauder btw) and some skillpoints, from which most also help other ships, are reason enough so you could stay in your egglaying woolmilkpig?
Sure you have to adapt. But thats what all off you said to the privateers after warnerf and tell every noob who gets ganked in highsec.
Now its your turn to adapt.




Guildwars cost nothing per month. I personally reached the level cap in 3 days staight out the box. Carrier takes well over a year to skill and you my friend clearly are not a carrier pilot

Silent Slaver
Posted - 2007.10.26 16:16:00 - [834]
 

ok, i have 2 tings to say:
1. why am i always so damn late to see these threads? seriously? Very Happy
2. this isnt enough, just dont nerf carriers, they arnt the be all end all ships of eve, you damaged most peoples dreams in eve when you nerfed the titans, now its carriers and moms, is it dreads next? BS's? cruisers?!? seriously, i wanted to get a carrier to help my corp, but i think i might need to change now. thanks ccp. thanks alot.

o, and i now cant use sisi cus of the graphics changes, stupid laptop....Embarassed

Lord Bleu
Darkstorm Command
Ethereal Dawn
Posted - 2007.10.26 16:16:00 - [835]
 

Hang on, CCP said not that long ago they were trying to discourage large fleets now they're saying the want to encourage it?

HU??

Silent Slaver
Posted - 2007.10.26 16:24:00 - [836]
 

Originally by: Lord Bleu
Hang on, CCP said not that long ago they were trying to discourage large fleets now they're saying the want to encourage it?

HU??



thank you! what i tried to say in another thread Rolling Eyes typical, lol

XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp
IT Alliance
Posted - 2007.10.26 16:26:00 - [837]
 

Edited by: XoPhyte on 26/10/2007 16:39:13
Originally by: Mack Dorgeans

Let's face it: there aren't enough good space games out there. You've got a TV show like Battlestar Galactica that makes people want to fly fighters, and here we have a game that could potentially take advantage of that. Why not give it a shot?



If you want to fly a fighter just fly an interceptor, they are essentially the same thing (except the fighter is less powerful, slower, cannot scramble, can't use gates etc.)

The Economist
Logically Consistent
Posted - 2007.10.26 16:51:00 - [838]
 

Just wondering:

CCP, have you lads done any projections as to the impact the proposed no-cargo-in-stored-ships change will have on the economy as a whole, and more specifically on ship and component prices?

I'd be interested to know.

Clorthos
Gallente
The Maverick Navy
Posted - 2007.10.26 17:27:00 - [839]
 

/clap clap CCP

You have just taken sides with my wife on getting me to quit the game.

carriers used for fighting - lets nerf that

carriers used for hauling - lets nerf that again (remember the cargo cans which also ment you could not haul pos gear unpackaged)

carriers used for remote reps - lets nerf that since MM defended thier carriers from a tri fleet by turtling up and repping each other.

Carriers are undocking - lets nerf that too so people can have their ships collect dust

Fact of the matter is that I spend 2 years training up all the skills to be an effective carrier pilot, drone control links remote reps jump cal 5 transport ships tech 2 drones fighters warfare links ... the freaking works. Now in 3 months none of it is going to be worth jack? or at least not worth undocking since I will not be able to effectivly fight my way out of a station if a gang is there, I should of stayed at ceptors if that was the case.

Like I said in the other post " grats on getting a promotion or a dev job but your broad sweeping ship devestating changes is complete bunk"

I have spent 2 years training my accounts (4) and 3 of which are capital pilots which all of your changes are now kicking in the sack.

I will come back and play when CCP releases the code and it goes to a player run server until then you guys have no clue what we do here aside pay for your paycheck and dividends.

who wants my stuff?


Hysidee
Warped Mining
Posted - 2007.10.26 17:34:00 - [840]
 

Originally by: Hunin


1) Keep the changes on Sisi not allowing carriers to hold ships with cargo. Increase the carrier's cargohold by 1.5 times. This will nerf the ability to travel with a industrial (or any other high cargohold ship type) full of cargo in the ship maintanence array but allow the carriers to have multiple capital modules available for refit.




I would agree with this, but i'm slightly concerned due to not being able to do the following: Carry spare frigates/cruisers with ammo they use in those ships cargo hold. I can see it happening that people go back to the carrier for a new ship, then you get people fighting over the ammo, plus lag for multiple people access both SMA and corp hanger, it would give alot of people headaches, anyway to just make that change to industrial ships and not the combat ships many pilots keep spare?


Pages: first : previous : ... 24 25 26 27 [28] 29 30 31 32 ... : 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