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 : ... 25 26 27 28 [29] 30 31 32 33 ... : last (38)

Author Topic

Posted - 2007.10.26 17:39:00 - [841]

one of the best ideas I've ever heard to correct this problem was thought up by a corp mate and I. What we propose is to implement a set of new modules: defender assault missile launchers, point defense blasters, point defense autocannons, and point defense pulse lasers.

they would be relatively cheap (2-4 mil) and would have the same PG CPU requirements as a T2 Medium gun/launcher.

They'd have to be like Medium Hybrid 5 > Medium Blaster Specialization 4 > Point Defense Blasters

so they'd be a pretty long train, and they'd have like a .5X damage modifier with like a 20000% bonus against fighters and drones and a 5,000m optimal range so this thing would do no damage to anything but fighters and drones but they'd gank them if they had the chance.

now obviously these numbers are in now way balanced, but you get the idea. also, dont make them uber long ranged cause then again you eliminate the reason for a carrier in a fleet battle. make people put them on a battlecruiser so they can get around, but dont just get insta-popped.

With this module, pilots would have the choice, do i nerf my damage dealing to kill these fighters/drones, or do i pray that i dont have to deal with that problem.

carrier pilots are also forced to make a choice: do i fly solo and possibly get ganked by one battlecruiser flying all point defense? or do i fly in a fleet which could take out such a problem?

now i know that carriers can fit smartbombs, but now they can only have 10 drones out at one time anyway, and they need to refit which answers the problem you guys have now saying that carriers can pwn all without having to refit.

I think this is the best way to balance the carrier/mothership while still keeping in the spirit of the game . . . any suggestions?
any responses from the DEV team (lol i wish)

Clerence Thomas
Black Lotus Heavy Industries
Ethereal Dawn
Posted - 2007.10.26 17:48:00 - [842]

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.

Actually, as I recall, that was in the early discussions and plans for fighters as I remember them from back before capitals were released... that'd be loads of fun - but only workable on motherships with their clone bays...

Bon Hedus
Voice of the Blood Raiders
Posted - 2007.10.26 17:54:00 - [843]

Originally by: Clorthos
/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?

am frustrated as well, but may stick it out for a bit... send your stuff this wayWink

The Fates
Posted - 2007.10.26 17:57:00 - [844]

Originally by: CCP kieron
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.

Nor does it change the misconception that this is the case.

When I read this blog, it really spoke to me about what CCP wants. I'm not sure the playerbase cares what CCP wants...

4 Marketeers
Posted - 2007.10.26 18:14:00 - [845]

I use a battleship for safe transport of valueables through empire where suicide pirates reign. are you going to nerf the battleships now.

3 well fitted recons can clean house against 4 battlehships, are you going to screw them over too?

we asked for a jumpable freighter and you give us a t2 varrient that must be copied from a bp that takes 6 weeks to make one copy to invent which is at best a crap shoot currently. you haven't solved this delema, you've only turned our request into a joke.

if you want to make a classed carrier, make several design that are rigged out to hold those roles.

the carrier is most seen in combat because the dread is useless in pvp unless the target isn't moving and has been painted bright pink and orange. maybe you should do something to engage the dreads in more combat, than beat the carrier into the ground.

if you say it is the end game, lets bring an lach vs a carrier and see who wins. while the carrier can't be destroyed, it certainly can't attack the lach (yes i know the lach is over kill, but hey, i like it) and it becomes a stand off that will end when the lach leaves the area. this can be done with a t1 frig with damps fitted with no problems. where is this end game your talking about, because, i just don't see it.

Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2007.10.26 18:45:00 - [846]

In case any devs missed, let me summarise the majority response to the proposed carrier changes:


Any questions?

Geb's Call
Posted - 2007.10.26 18:55:00 - [847]

Let's just try and say yes for once :p
Here is my YES you can change carriers with mods for particular occasions :
-IF when i fit fighters to fight BS+ size targets i get at least twice my current dps
-IF when i fit smaller drones to hunt smaller things i get other bonus's
-IF I don't need to train anymore useless rank V skills to use my carrier in every particular occasion
-IF you add 0.0 npc content for the carrier pilots
-IF you totally nerf the dampeners so they react to sensor strength
-IF you make my carrier's model two or three times bigger
-IF my fighters take less than a second to answer my orders

And trust me , the carrier is far from being a swiss knife or whatever, the people who npc with it either camp one belt or use some completely unholy setups (like me) that can't handle anything else .

Sertan Deras
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2007.10.26 18:58:00 - [848]

Has CCP figured out yet that we would like them to fix what's actually broken, rather than jacking with Carriers?

I like one posters earlier suggestion: If you are worried about Carriers being the most used capital ship, try making Dreadnaughts useful for more than siege warfare and people might fly them.

Posted - 2007.10.26 18:59:00 - [849]

Hello All,
sorry for my bad english,

for the carrier, if this is immpossible to dock in the station,

they are problems to used the clone jump, the thanatos and other carrier of the same class vessel not used the clone bay.....

if it am necessary in the player to leave his carrier, it is needed that he can anchoring this carrier in the pos and to put in him a passworld in order to avoid witch it is stolen or used by another member without his permission.

Now if the player dont have the possiblity to connect in the game for IRL reason, this is not normal whitch lost this all effort of this job, for this reason, i think the is necessary to have in the each empires one system where the capital ship can anchoring and to put an pssword for security in this system, can not destroyed for other player/corp/alliance and witch only an industrial ship with the only fuel items for carrier can move in this systems for to reload the carrier and soo the frigate with cynosurald module with item of liquid zone... (all ship with want moved in the gate can not jump in this systems, and all ship witch arrived by wormohle of cynosural or frigate or indutrial see all arms (turret smartbomb drones fighters offensive or defensive) desactivated.

i think , this is an good approch if ccp want changed the rules of carrier


Posted - 2007.10.26 19:00:00 - [850]

been fighting w/ myself to stay in eve for a long time, praying and waiting that something comes in for amarr soon (granted khanid was nice but just a few ships for missile based ppl)

If the carrier/MS can only control 5 fighters directly, i think it will push me over the edge. since launch i have only managed to get about 1B tops in my account, that was work done getting the carrier. also the skills wasted on training a carrier/fighters to have them completely change direction. Granted most capital pilots have 2 accounts, its crap to make it an absolute necessity.

If i buy a Ferrari it damn well better be a Ferrari a year later not a civic. If you screeew up the fighters on top of already making the carrier a logistics ship, it will have shown me the direction the game is moving in, A direction I no longer wish to travel.

Wilfuc Fatburdz
The Capitals' Club
Posted - 2007.10.26 19:31:00 - [851]

Originally by: Kardim
been fighting w/ myself to stay in eve for a long time, ///

If i buy a Ferrari it damn well better be a Ferrari a year later not a civic. If ///

What a great sig line that is...

Posted - 2007.10.26 19:33:00 - [852]


I'm a carrier flier, but this just sounds like Carrier Online.

Now, instead of a carrier being able to everything at once, you can fit it to do everything by changing modules. That makes sense Rolling Eyes

Does this mean we get modules to turn apocs into transport ships, and freighters into poses? I'm confused - why the special treatment?

Wilfuc Fatburdz
The Capitals' Club
Posted - 2007.10.26 19:52:00 - [853]

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. ////

Yes I'm bitter, no really gosh you haven't guessed. Nevermind all the goodwill shown here from the players twiddle module this or skill that to dig you out of this hole. It needs to be said someone at CCP with a careless bright idea effectively crapped from a great height on people paying good money for a year or so's time sink training and said thanks for the cash, sucker.

If we think you think you can do this to those folk, then unsurprisingly the reaction must inevitably be oh my God, all that time, noone is safe. Get it? Remorse and humble pie seems the most appropriate course now, dontchathink?

Princess Jodi
Cutting Edge Incorporated
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2007.10.26 20:06:00 - [854]

Ok. After reading the Dev responses here I'm in a slightly better mood. Not sure if it is due to their responses or due to getting lightheaded cuz the Adreneline rush is wearing off.

I have no problem with specialization of Carriers, expecially if it allows me to get better abilities than I have now if I choose that specialization. As I said before, I'm willing to lose the Ship Maint bay, Cargo Hauling and Remote Repair cuz they just don't fit my playstyle. What I want is a sky full of Drones / Fighters.

Now for Constructive Criticism:

1> ZuluPark, change your CCP name. The introduction to the community you gave is something you'll NEVER live down. We don't know you yet - its the perfect time.

2> Non-Carrier Pilots, stop commenting on something you know nothing about. Besides the blatant bias against Capitals you've shown, more often than not you let slip a little gem which shows just how ignorant you are about the issue at hand.

3> The 'I-Quit' Bunch, don't quit Eve if we find out the only reason we're not yet hit by the NerfBat is that the last one broke and they're getting a replacement. Rather, sell your Carriers and characters, then use the isk to buy Game Time Cards for the next 3 years. Quitting just takes future money out of CCP's hands. Its better to instead play for free.

I'll be sitting in your Game, using up your Resources, angering your Paying Customers - and doing it all for free for years. Evil or Very Mad

Ministry of Destruction
Posted - 2007.10.26 20:22:00 - [855]

Edited by: mcSpeedfreak on 26/10/2007 20:26:37
Originally by: L Cross
No worries there CCP Kieron. I paid and played eve for about 2 yrs and now I am not paying anymore. More money to enjoy any number of games where designers don't decide to **** everyone.

Level 60 knight trains his character for 2yrs. He has +24 kill stick of doom due to countless hours of fighting stupid monsters. He kills newbie army of 25 because they using +0 p shooters of 3 month old playerdom. 25 players whine that it's not "fair". Devs: "25 accounts worth far more than 1" i.e. $x25 > $x1

Simple solution for hypothetical game
Simple solution for Eve

Simple solution for me too. Thank you very much for providing me with 2 yrs of enjoyable game play.

Good luck with your new players and their Ibis

posts like this make me wanna cry and kill the world population.... seems they deserve it.
i have played many onine games and also worked for a few in various roles (not allowed to say which, of course) but thats besides the point... just a bit of forum browsing on other games will tell you one thing:

there is , to my knowledge, no other mmo out there so transparent and in touch with its community as this.

alone the fact that they DO post PLANNED changes and ASK for opinions is commendable.

people might agree or disagree to those changes for different reasons and thats good... thats the point of an open discussion...

so all the "i go and play another game" whiners.. bye bye have fun....

back to topic:

i can see where CCP is coming from and agree that something will have to be done in order to prevent 0.0 being utterly Carrier overrun...
I can also see why this annoys people...

i dont yet fly a carrier... have the skills but no cash/need for one .. yet... so i do follow this discussion with interest.
but i cannot argue pro or con from a pilots perspective...

just keep the discussion rolling and keep it constructive... i hate whiners... :)


Juwi Kotch
KOTCH Construction and Anchoring
Posted - 2007.10.26 20:27:00 - [856]

Well, I must say, the proposed changes make sense to me. It is understandable that many whine when their favourite toy is going to be nerfed, but all in all, it will be good for the game play, the role play, and the overall balance.

So a YES from me. And I will continue with my plan to train for a carrier some time next year.

Juwi Kotch

Digital Fury Corporation
Digital Renegades
Posted - 2007.10.26 20:35:00 - [857]

these dev blogs and the responses have made one thing clear to me... 3 months is WAY too soon for these changes, you will need to have them play tested for awhile as many of the discussions and comments by devs seem to not understand the real capabilities of carriers. As far as seeing tons in 0.0, you may no matter how you change them unless you make them useless at combat, simply because they have a large HP soak to absorb damage during the terrible lag.

Fix POS warfare and blobbing mechanics somehow and all these problems go away tbh

Autumn Sky
Spartan Industrial Manufacturing
SMASH Alliance
Posted - 2007.10.26 20:54:00 - [858]

Originally by: Redback911

I'm a carrier flier, but this just sounds like Carrier Online.

Now, instead of a carrier being able to everything at once, you can fit it to do everything by changing modules. That makes sense Rolling Eyes

Does this mean we get modules to turn apocs into transport ships, and freighters into poses? I'm confused - why the special treatment?

Great point. Carriers are certainly not the most popular ships out there. And BoB and Goons and most people in between agree that they're not overpowered. I wonder why carriers are singled out for changes...with all the new ships coming out, the carrier will by default be reduced to jack of trades if the new ships do those trades better.

Random comparison: Carriers in Homeworld2 could build ships. Could we get some carrier modules for building fighters? Wink

the muppets
Posted - 2007.10.26 20:56:00 - [859]

Edited by: Dionisius on 26/10/2007 20:56:53
I have another proposal, CCP could implement more capital ships, a couple of Tech 2 ones for instance.

Let me explain, the tech 2 could be like a giant Dread or a flagship like ship with the following atributes:

- Station status like when deployed.
- Can only be deployed on moons against POS's.
- Needs a pilot to fly and manage it.
- Has 2 or 3 XLARGE Guns.
- Has a very small detachment of drones.
- People can store its clones there.
- People can store/repair and fit some ships there, (up to some cruisers or max 1 Battleship per member up to lets say up to 10 bs and 15 cruisers?)
- Needs fuel to work. ( alot )
- Can jump the fleet with it.

- Needs Dreads V, Capitals V, Leadership and Management Skills at V for instance.

Usefulness, to stay and give support during a fleet fight or POS takedown, to act as repair center for ships and fast re-deployment of pilots.

And a Carrier Flagship, not quite above the mothership but one more centered in combat, really lousy for hauling stuff but one that can give:

- Bonuses to fleets trough link modules, up to 3 max.
- Fighter support only, with increased ammount of fighters in bay and deployed.
- The hability to fit only remote repair modules

Enhanced eWar hability, i didn't say imune ok, just a bit more tought to jam or damp, after all its a t2 combat version.

Some T2 resistances according to race and both a bit more slow to move and turn, after all we are talking about giant ships here.

Needing Carrier V, Capitals V, Flagship Skill?, Leadership V, T2 resistances bonuses at V for instance?

You could restrict Moms and these ships to 0.0 only and leave carriers untouched. Smile

This should add some more glamour to 0.0 alliance warfare and add more stuff for people to aim for, along with the new ships already being implemented with the next patch.

Grath Telkin
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2007.10.26 21:08:00 - [860]

Ships like the Aeon have been with the Empire for a long time. They have remained a mainstay of Amarr expansion as, hopeful for a new beginning beyond the blasted horizon, whole cities of settlers sojourn from their time-worn homesteads to try their luck on infant worlds. The Aeon represents the largest ship of its kind in the history of the Empire, capable of functioning as a mobile citadel in addition to fielding powerful armaments.

Amarr Carrier Skill Bonuses:
50% bonus to Capital Energy and Armor transfer range per level
5% bonus to all Armor resistances per level
99% reduction in CPU need for Clone Vat Bay
99% reduction in CPU need for Warfare Link modules
99% reduction in CPU need for Projected Electronic Counter Measures modules
99% reduction in CPU need for Tactical Logistics Reconfiguration modules
Can deploy 3 additional Fighters per level
Can fit 1 additional Warfare Link module per level
200% bonus to Fighter control range
Immune to all forms of Electronic Warfare

This sounds like an awesome ship. The thought of its fighters pouring out makes you shudder. Thats the allure get it? THAT is what you want to kill. Something nobody else has really brought up is that if you did something like making wingmen field your drones, AND have the bandwith limitations on fielding drones, it would take you FAR MORE THAN ONE WINGMAN TO FIELD YOUR DRONES.

For example, say you just wanted to hand out your drones to fast locking interceptors...and you had 5 out for your self, but were capable of fielding would need something like SEVEN INTERCEPTORS just to hand them all out.

If motherships are the problem, lock them out of lowsec, problem solved. If you think they are overpowered solopwnmobiles i suggest a day were the devs considering OR working on this idea spend all day on the test server facing the players in their ships. Seriously, in every situation you think they are too strong, put yourself solo in a carrier in that position, and see what happens. Let the players attack you in increasingly large gangs so you can see the break point on when you become vulnerable.

Ive seen some really good ideas from your player base concerning the changes that COULD be made to carriers, most of which inline with changes you wanted (flying the fighters was the coolest btw). You should look at them.

For what its worth to all the people wanting to quit, i have faith that the guys who made the game you love will be the guys to come in and fix what is wrong in the development department's thought processes. Im sure that on more than one occasion we DONT know about some nitwit idea was squashed by those in the know at CCP. This one will likely be one of those ideas, and if it does hit a point where we play it, it will likely be VASTLY different than anything suggested in the original nerfbat suggestion

Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2007.10.26 21:44:00 - [861]

Edited by: Valran on 26/10/2007 21:47:39
The more I think about this, the more I realte it to SOE's decision to make Jedi a starter profession after people spent thousands of hours grinding the unlockable profession. That decision cost them the game and now SWG is a dirty word to many devoted Ex SWG fans.

CCP, learn from SOE's disasterous 'we know best' attitude.

Edit: PS, I quit SWG in tears and came to eve becuase of SOE's decision. Prove to me that MMO's are all the same and I'm out of here the same way I left SWG. I loved that game, I love this game, but for one second make me realise that eve is just one giant waste of my time and that love gets replaces with resentment and once resentment hits, there's no going back. My blood STILL boils, 2 years later at the thought of what SOE did to us poor losers who wasted about a year trying to obtain the Jedi profession and I absolutely refuse to play anything by SOE.

United Constructions
Posted - 2007.10.26 21:44:00 - [862]

Dear CCP,

At the beginig i'd like to say that i understand why you created another blog, closed old topic and created a new one. It's obvious that since that dev wrote everything so directly, people defended for what they skilled for for the past 1 year so eagerly. Many friends, who don't usually post here, changed their minds to show how greatly you're wrong at this topic.

It is all known that motehrships are the problem. Carriers, with limited fighters/drones, are not a big issue since they get a dps around a t2 fitted mega set for gank, or even greater when it comes to the gallente ship. This is a constructive criticism, do i expect you to read it very carefully, fromt the very begining.

Your way of thinking cannot be accepted, and the solution is also not acceptable. When someone is ill and has (for example) high temperature, you ought not to focus on it, but on the SOURCE of illness.

There were also rumors that Dev Team started to think about the mothership problem after being defeated by one in armageddon day, while she was camping jita station. If someone is trying to overwhelm this ship with just brute force and firepower, he should not succed. Never. And also my guess is, that the devs/gms that met this beautiful and power, but not without a weakness, vessel, that they didn't actually think how to destroy it. But this issue is not important at the moment.

So we've come to a point where motehrships are treated like a desease. Ok. I'd like to remind everyone that one of the main reason behind those actions is a huge veriaty of drones. From high damaging ones, to sniping, nossing and even webbing. Noone needs any modules when he has got drones. The SOURCE of our problem is NOT the mothership itself, but the drones, it's power and weakness at the same time. We ought not to change the ship that 'cause of some overpowered modules became very good, but the SOURCE of our illness. The variety was chosen to add up some additional valor to the game. So that not only people would have damaging drones. I think that maybe the only change that would need to be is :

- Letting mothership/carrier launch ONLY 5 drones, fighters would stay at the level that they're atm
- Fighters should be able to be warp scrabmled, tracking disrupted, damped and ALL EWAR
- Making a module that would disrupt tracking of some ships in some radius - if neded new class ship would be required, cruiser/bc hull based

Ships like motherships SHOULD BE taken down with alot effort and a good plan. After all they're motherships, the pride of each race with titans also. The variaty for ships should be even more complex, so that people could train for ships dedicated for motehrship/titan destruction and THIS IS how pvp should be protected. THIS IS how we shoudl change the world of EVE as it is today.

I hope that you liked reading my post and that it will not be a wasted effort, especially by the CCP staff.

Posted - 2007.10.26 23:29:00 - [863]

To me idea to not like.
carrier it becomes weak even in fine fights.
Think up the capital the ships of the form cannon-platforms. Which fight conducts automatically, and can operate the instrument of the basic calibre. And in game there is no atmosphere as in star wars.Sad

Defender Argus
Posted - 2007.10.26 23:47:00 - [864]

Game is too balanced. There is no difference for what рассу to play. It would be necessary to create the profound specialization in скиллах. Type up to 5 levels, it is possible to pump over each studied skill further till 10-15-20, but in that case to increase cost of demanded glasses of skills in some times. In that case: it is possible to achieve more specialized on what that the certain method of struggle of players. It turns out when you will type from above 20-30k SP there is nothing to study more, except for those skills which you will not be going to use.
Here for example: I would like to become elite pilot BattleShip. Having studied 5 level of skill Drone, and on skill Battleship, I have nothing to study more except for as the Capital the ships.

Posted - 2007.10.27 00:03:00 - [865]

Edited by: WardogX on 27/10/2007 00:05:25
Originally by: WardogX
Originally by: CCP kieron
Carriers, the Swiss Army Knife of EVE???

No nurfs... just add more capital ships and make the new ships balanced.. its win/win for everyone.

If you create a series of new capital ships (not even t2) focused on specialization and pricing them to be in the 1-2 billion dollar category they would allow players to focus on getting into ships other then carriers. Price and functionality has driven people into carriers. 900-1000m isk is pretty cheap to step into a carrier.. cheaper then a dread and its effective against smaller targets with fighters. I can appreciate your natural inclination is to get rid of the fighters and make life easy. I can also appreciate you not wanting people to use these to haul POS fuel on top of being good at pvp. The idea of installing modules to change roles isn't bad as long as its not too limiting or you still will ruin the ship.

However another alternative all together (or in addition too) is just make more capital ships... do so with the "checks and balances" kind of a system. A capital ship that can totally dominate a carrier/mom but loses against a dreads very easy. Or perhaps a mid of the road ship 1/2 dread 1/2 carrier... 5 fighters and a couple big cap turrets but NO seige mode however make it naturally tank a little better. If you give us variety people will try to make it work for them and migrate in other directions.

Also it would be GREAT to fill the gap for up and coming capital pilots and create a mid sized capital ship.. something in the 500 mill isk creation price range that has 1/2 the tank ability of the bigger cap ships but plays more of a support role. Careful work would have to be done balancing these to not become to overpowered and cheap "go to" ship.. but if done right these could be VERY popular and have lots of variety of roles. they effectively would be the capital ship version of a battlecruier.

Also please stop lil frigates from being able dampen and scramming bigger ships in the game its very unbalanced (EW should be realistic if your going to have it) perhaps make these new mid sized capital ships EW specialist.. I could handle a 500 million isk capital EW ship dampening me and scramming me more then I can handle a 1 million isk ship brining a 1 billion isk ship to its knees functionally. Do you see how far off this is? If you fixed some of these core game mechanics you could make way for ALL kinds of new and inventive capital ship types.. just like you did on the frigate and cruiser level in this game.

Posted - 2007.10.27 00:23:00 - [866]

Originally by: Defender Argus
Game is too balanced. There is no difference for what рассу to play. It would be necessary to create the profound specialization in скиллах. Type up to 5 levels, it is possible to pump over each studied skill further till 10-15-20, but in that case to increase cost of demanded glasses of skills in some times. In that case: it is possible to achieve more specialized on what that the certain method of struggle of players. It turns out when you will type from above 20-30k SP there is nothing to study more, except for those skills which you will not be going to use.
Here for example: I would like to become elite pilot BattleShip. Having studied 5 level of skill Drone, and on skill Battleship, I have nothing to study more except for as the Capital the ships.

um . . . . lol?!

try all of the rest of the drone skills such as drone navigation, drone sharpshooting and drone interfacing . . . after you get done with those 2 months of training we'll talk about your gun skills, and then your engineering to 5 and your electronics to 5 and advanced weapon upgrades 5 (which btw requires weapon upgrades 5) so you can fit bigger guns, then work on your mechanic skills so you can avoid getting insta-popped because youre still putting a small T1 armor repair system on your BB.

post again saying youve done all that and then we'll talk

Leigh Goslin
Posted - 2007.10.27 00:25:00 - [867]

Edited by: Leigh Goslin on 27/10/2007 01:40:38
here is my 2 cents...

right it has effectivly taken me about 4-6 months to train for the ship...and i aint finished yet...right? i spent 1.5-1.7 bil on it in total JUST FOR THE SHIP the skills cost me about 1.2 bil also..

now you want to nerf 4-6 months x 10,000 and 2.7-2.9 billion x 10000 isk. you guys seriously need to think about what your doing.

yes the ship is very alot of things....but you get what you pay for right?
the fact is this nerf is not the right thing to do and you know it. you can tell that people want you to leave it alone.

and for the love of God "everyone has carriers" big #%^&ing deal when BS were the daddy they probably thought...ahh not many people will be able to get these coz they are like...well expensive compared to the promotional "lolugotowned ibis/velator" offer where if u die u get one for free...and 1 tritanium...woo im so proud.

now look at empire.. yes carriers are fine the way they are in my oppinion. ok why?
name-"carrier":what does it have? a ship maintenance it can what sorry? "CARRY ships." and omg it has a drone do what sorry? oh yeah duh! carry drones...why? because the hunk of metal costs 1 billion.

yes they have tanks..why? well u dont build a house made out of fiberglass and sell it for a stupid ammount of money with no insurance that when a kid kicks a footbal at it its not gonna fall down?.

ok Role 1: logistics...omg so it can repair stuff...oh no..that actually conforms to the role...NERF! omg it can carry ships so when people get bbq by your laggy servers "which the logs unfortunately dont show so we cant replace your unfairly lost ships...because we might ruin the perfect economy of jita" someone can come get a new one (refer to name section under "ship maintanence bay".
and LOL look it can let u refit your ships when u get close... logistically ingenious when the battlefeild is well...changed due to the fact u just got bbqd by the "insert copy and past lag petition reply here".

role 2- deploy fighters to increase fire power to support... oh no people actually are using this feature...

role 3- in case of emergency..panick and click launch drones...same way oh no panick f1-f8
if your gonna nerf my ships fire power..can you nerf all my other ships so they can only fit 2 weapons at once please? that would be better than winning the lottery. dont like the fact a CAPITAL ship can do so much...ok so a titan can click a button and eradicate everything on a grid in under 20 seconds..but a carrier cant launch 10 fighters and maybe sack off a couple of battleships+w/e in the half hour it takes for your server to decide its actually gonna do something and not let me go down stairs and cook dinner for 5000 starving africans and cure aids and come back up before its even told my computer whats on the grid i warped to? while my fleet commander sits there experimenting how many of his fingers he can cut off and still be able to play ahead of the server?

heres an idea...make it so that carriers/MS cant launch drones in low sec...that way all the carebears that get suprised by a multibillion isk lump of metal with extremely large smart bombs and wakes up in a station like...well..wont do that again today? and all the people who actually use carriers can get on with EVE and not cry because they cant fly a carrier.

nice ideas with the new mods..and the nice new idea of fitting mods for differnt situations...but i did not pay to sit here watch a 30 day count down about 10 times in a row to get some thing to learn that once ive got it...i gotta do it again so i can use stuff i already had.

sorry but u CANT possibly beleive what your thinking of doing is right in anyway sorry but leave the capital ships the way they are or once you do it youl have effectively massacred a year of my life in 2 nerfs...the last one and the one your thinking of now.

fix the real problems first thanks


Flex Carter
Caldari Independant Mining Association
Posted - 2007.10.27 01:58:00 - [868]

Originally by: Princess Jodi

I'll be sitting in your Game, using up your Resources, angering your Paying Customers - and doing it all for free for years. Evil or Very Mad

Who says I don't have a Hero... Very Happy

Sacred Templars
Posted - 2007.10.27 02:00:00 - [869]

i wonder is this illegal?

becasue changing a service details that ur paying for is illegal.

and ccp

who do i contact to get a refund? (thats important)

Posted - 2007.10.27 02:20:00 - [870]

Edited by: Kitasi on 27/10/2007 02:21:21
What you have here is an actual problem. I don't actually agree with that statement, but I can see where you are coming from, and that you would like to fix it. The issue here is that you are fixing it by taking away, and forcing our hand. At least with the ore compression there were additions that had value. Why must you lower the value of an item (an incredibly expensive one at that)? You already have plans to impliment an alternate form of cyno field, why not do a third type required by the motherships and titans? Perhaps find sime juggling of the stats for dreadnaughts without active Siege Modules so that they may effectivly assault sub-capitals? Furthermore, I think the introduction of Maruaders may have something to say about the 10,000+ carriers out there. This is an arms race after all. What nation would design a military device that was hampered with the purpose of it requiring assistance? Your job is to add someting bigger, meaner, and tougher that what I'm up against now that makes me say, "Holy crap, I need to band up with some smaller ships for protection from that new ship!" I think most of us don't relish the idea of thinking, "Holy crap, I need to band up with some smaller ships for protection from that interceptor and those two assault ships!"

Carriers and motherships are not the best options for jump-capable freight transport; they are the only ones. The proposed solution for that is most definatly workable, but Carriers will still be the best option for a while. Do remember though, it is woefully inefficient to transport that way when you consider the costs of fuel, the capacity consumed by the fuel, and a need for fuel at both ends for multiple trips (or further reduced capacity to have enough fuel for both legs).

Regarding their use as logistics ships, why would this be altered? Proper utilization of carrier logistic roles take quite a bit of skill (both real and virtual), even in minor engagements. The fact that multiple logistics-fitted carriers can "circle the wagons" and hold off a substantually larger force should not be surprising at all.

I suppose what I am trying to get across here is that I get it. You had an idea for how people would use something you put in the game. We're a creative lot, and we found other uses for it too. So many in fact, that people are using it to the exclusion of ships that were ment for these other purposes. Perhaps this means you did make a mistake and the ship is the Swiss Army Knife, or it could mean a mistake was made with those other ships and they are all just Ronco Pocket Fisherman (TM).

Pages: first : previous : ... 25 26 27 28 [29] 30 31 32 33 ... : 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

These forums are archived and read-only