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 : 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (38)

Author Topic

Shalis
Posted - 2007.10.24 02:01:00 - [61]
 

Originally by: Baun
Originally by: CCP kieron
Carrier and Motherships were designed to be a combined effort among corporation members where they rely on the group, and be pretty much defenseless against small ship classes without support.


Hate to break it to you buddy, they already are.

You will NEVER see a solo carrier actively fighting ANYWHERE that lives long. The same holds true for motherships in 0.0.

Seriously, do you people play this game? I won't even deploy my Nyx on grid without another MS or 6-7 carriers in support in a CYNO-JAMMED SYSTEM. If I deploy even with that level of support in other systems I risk getting completely pwned while I sit and watch helplessly.

Wake up, and stop believing your own bull****.



I think you and alot of other people are missing the point. Understandable since your minds are problably clouded at this time due to the strong emotions flowing around.

I can see CCPs point. Its not that carriers/moms do not require support right now, they do, but the support right now is provided by other carriers/moms. As it is there is not point in flying nothing else. The only reason people aren't flying carriers/moms now is cause they don't have the skill points/isk to do it. Give it another year and all you will see is carriers/moms.

All CCP is trying to do is make it so that there will be more diversity in fleets. The easy way would had been to make carriers/moms more expensive but that would only prolong the inevitable, it just would take extra time to reach the same end of all carriers/moms flying around. So they took the harder way which is to nerf the carriers/moms so that they don't become the obvious choice for everyone to fly in.

I like the idea of giving the option of carriers/moms to specialize. Opens up a whole new dimension to them. But personally i think they should take away drones from carriers/moms completly. Let them have fighters only. This would force Carriers/moms to require a escort of cruisers/frigates to deal with the small ships, and of BSs to deal with the cruisers bringing combined fleets into play.

Alot people will be upset about this. but i for one belive its the best course of action if we want eve to last for many more years. Because the people crying now would also be the people crying later when you see nothing but carriers and MOMs out there.

Just my 2 cents.

Shalis

Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
Posted - 2007.10.24 02:03:00 - [62]
 

Edited by: Merin Ryskin on 24/10/2007 02:04:45
+1 on "what the hell are you thinking?". Please, just delete this dev blog, post an apology, and forget this whole mess ever happened. The idea that carriers are overpowered is just laughable. Let's look at the downsides:

1) Massive cost. Carriers are easily out-performed in any of their roles by the same ISK value in smaller ships. They have a purpose, but they're not a ship you can just casually throw into any random fight without a second thought. Especially if you aren't a member of one of the bigger alliances, and have to pay for the ship yourself.

2) Massive vulnerability to damps. A 5 million ISK Celestis can turn a carrier into an expensive paperweight. Unless, hey, brilliant idea, the carrier pilot is flying with support, in which case, there's a chance to remove the damping ship.

3) Difficult movement method. The jump drive is nice to have, but it makes the carrier dependent on a support network to even move. So much for your solo pwnmobile.

4) Difficult to escape from attackers. Forget MWD-ing out of a bubble, running for the gate, etc. Unless you only engage from docking range of a station or friendly POS, your only escape is jumping out. Good luck doing this while scrambled by the previously-mentioned Lachesis, or sitting in a bubble.

5) Extremely slow locking time. Forget about ever killing anything without a supporting fleet to pin it down for you.

6) Inability to fit necessary PVP modules (web/scram) without massively compromising tank and/or massively increasing vulnerability to damps. If you can't pin it down, you can't kill it. So much for your solo pwnmobile.

So considering all these weaknesses, you have a ship that is already dependent on proper support fleets. Now let's look at these roles you can supposedly perform "without re-fitting":

Quote:
# Fighting off any kind of foe, small or big. Most have a set of fighters and a lot of normal drones in their drone bay. This means they can choose drones / fighters based on their enemy's size, choose their damage type and even be quite effective jammers using ewar drones.


Damage, even with fighters, is only slightly more than a gank-fitted battleship. A Dominix or two can do almost as well against small ships, for a fraction of the cost. Remember, this is supposedly without re-fitting, so we can't assume a full rack of DCUs for max gank on the carrier pilot.

Quote:
# Great logistics ships - They've got plenty of capacitor to be very effective logistics ships using capital sized logistic modules. Triage mode can be very effective in small scale fleet combat when applied correctly.


Remember, triage not only costs you a high slot (less damage on #1)+ another high slot for each remote rep (same) just to have the option, but activating triage completely removes your offensive ability. Again, you have to pick your role and fit for it.


Quote:
# Jump capable haulers - Although not an intended role, they're currently being used as jump capable haulers, which is probably the safest way to transport stuff from empire space to 0.0 and vice versa.


And they're extremely poor at it when using a general combat fitting. A carrier hauler is packed with cap recharge and/or cargo expanders, and filled with industrials instead of combat ships.

Quote:
# Excellent support ships - They can bring ships and modules behind enemy lines, are capable of fighter delegation and able to help damage-wise with minimal exposure to the enemy.


See above. But really, if you're at a POS, it doesn't matter how you're fitted. Also, this is the WORST of the carrier's roles, but the one you're pushing for at the expense of all others. Sitting at a POS assigning fighters might be effective, but it's incredibly boring.


Haerana
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
Posted - 2007.10.24 02:04:00 - [63]
 

Edited by: Haerana on 24/10/2007 02:06:49
Wow... just WoW.
I gotta say that after the original devblog about it, i must agree. CCP still have no fkin clue how a carrier is used in the game.

Just dont touch them... there's nothing wrong.
You want carriers and moms to need a support gang... they do if they wanna take on near any normal roaming gang i see linked in intel channels.
I wouldnt dare risk my 1bil+ isk baby solo against them.

Somebody mentioned a Tri gang earlier... to true. heard of a carrier needing help from a 10 man Tri gang a little while ago... i think 2 cruisers went and even cyno'd in a 2nd carrier... it ended up 2 cruisers and 2 carriers dieing Rolling Eyes

Carriers need, if anything, a buff tbh. My thanatos with its 12 fighters does about 1440dps.... Thats not alot more than a dps pimped blasterthron.
Sure we can tank alot more but that doesnt make us any less vulnerable to the ewar in the game.


/goes to bed hoping not to have nightmares of a Tri gang

Edit: forgot to mention. the 5drones at a time only is plain laughable. will do less damage than a frigging dominix...

GC13
Caldari
Species 5618
R0ADKILL
Posted - 2007.10.24 02:04:00 - [64]
 

If this change was accompanied by the alluded to streamlined fighter assigning GUI and by an immunity to ECM and sensor dampners, I'd consider it fair. Carriers need somebody to project their force for them, and aren't easily shut down from fulfilling their logistics role.

Of course, right now they are easy to shut down, preventing them from locking friendlies in need of repair. That, my friends, is bah. And of course, I'd prefer a fighter range nerf to a fighter control amount nerfed. Forces carriers right up in to the fray, or to allocate their fighters to close-up support.

Elorai
Posted - 2007.10.24 02:06:00 - [65]
 

Originally by: Cadiz
Remove the remote logistics bonuses of the current carriers. Add tier 2/second batch of tier 1 carriers that have (more substantial) bonuses to using capital remote logistics at expense of drone control bonuses.

Instead of watering down carriers terribly, why not just break them apart into more specialized subsects? Sure, extra art resources, etc. etc. etc., but the devs should know better than anybody that new ships make everybody excited.



Again you missing the point. all this would do is created mixed fleets of different carriers. It would still be the same thing.. just instead of 50 x carriers/moms blob you would have 20 x, 20 y, 20 z carriers blob all supporting each other.

shalis

L Cross
Posted - 2007.10.24 02:07:00 - [66]
 

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

Zaibatsu Gaijin
Reikoku
IT Alliance
Posted - 2007.10.24 02:08:00 - [67]
 

Edited by: Zaibatsu Gaijin on 24/10/2007 02:16:36
It is a damn shame when thousands of your PAYING subscribers tell you that you are dead WRONG, and you shrug it off as irrelevant. The people who use these ships more than any Dev has tested them. You sit there and look at the ships stats on its attributes tab. You are the analyst behind a desk telling the seasoned veteran that they don't know anything about war. This new blog says the same thing, only with a different Dev who can flower it up make it sound a little better.

The plain fact that you think a carrier/mothership is unbeatable shows that you don't know your own game as well as you like to think that you do. You want to reduce the damage carriers and moms do to support class ships, yet the majority of carrier and mothership kills in the game come from battleship class ships and lower. Carriers and motherships are not as invulnerable as you make them out to be.

This all said: there is merit in what you are trying to do, to encourage different styles of gameplay with a carrier, but it does not require you to nerf the carrier so that it completely relies on other people to defend itself adquately, especially a mothership.

Bein Glorious
SAKUMA DROP
ANAHEIM ELECTRONICS Alliance
Posted - 2007.10.24 02:09:00 - [68]
 

A good number of the people in this thread are being completely unreasonable. Some of you should act like adults instead of nitpicking minor details, avoiding important points intentionally, and pulling up archaic arguments (for instance, the fact that Sensor Damps will be nerfed in Trinity and shouldn't pose such a huge threat to carriers as they do now, and they are almost certainly taking steps to reduce lag). They aren't trying to completely remove the ships from the game, so don't be dumb and insinuate that they are; that is completely irrational and unedifyingly juvenile. There are a couple people in this thread who should honestly feel ashamed of themselves.

That said, it would be best for CCP to put less emphasis on the problems with solo carriers. A carrier with no support whatsoever - flying around like a big dominix - is practically harmless. Only huge megablobs of carriers (such as twenty, thirty, or more) are really a major problem.



There is a reason why, in Team Fortress 2, having a team of all Heavies or all Medics is a bad idea. There is a reason why, in Company of Heroes, training Snipers and nothing else is a losing strategy. All CCP is trying to do is induce that same kind of thing with carriers.

People say Star Wars Galaxies failed because SOE didn't listen to their customers and tried to make the game "the way they wanted it, not what the players wanted" or something like that, and try to draw parallels between them and CCP. I never played Star Wars Galaxies, but what I heard really happened was that they listened to the wrong players, the ones who wanted Jedi to be easily accessible, which made every other class not worth playing.

Maybe some of you should think about that, and post again when you can act like an adult.

Cailais
Amarr
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
Posted - 2007.10.24 02:10:00 - [69]
 

Originally by: Shalis
Originally by: Baun
Originally by: CCP kieron
Carrier and Motherships were designed to be a combined effort among corporation members where they rely on the group, and be pretty much defenseless against small ship classes without support.


Hate to break it to you buddy, they already are.

You will NEVER see a solo carrier actively fighting ANYWHERE that lives long. The same holds true for motherships in 0.0.

Seriously, do you people play this game? I won't even deploy my Nyx on grid without another MS or 6-7 carriers in support in a CYNO-JAMMED SYSTEM. If I deploy even with that level of support in other systems I risk getting completely pwned while I sit and watch helplessly.

Wake up, and stop believing your own bull****.



I think you and alot of other people are missing the point. Understandable since your minds are problably clouded at this time due to the strong emotions flowing around.

I can see CCPs point. Its not that carriers/moms do not require support right now, they do, but the support right now is provided by other carriers/moms. As it is there is not point in flying nothing else. The only reason people aren't flying carriers/moms now is cause they don't have the skill points/isk to do it. Give it another year and all you will see is carriers/moms.

All CCP is trying to do is make it so that there will be more diversity in fleets. The easy way would had been to make carriers/moms more expensive but that would only prolong the inevitable, it just would take extra time to reach the same end of all carriers/moms flying around. So they took the harder way which is to nerf the carriers/moms so that they don't become the obvious choice for everyone to fly in.

I like the idea of giving the option of carriers/moms to specialize. Opens up a whole new dimension to them. But personally i think they should take away drones from carriers/moms completly. Let them have fighters only. This would force Carriers/moms to require a escort of cruisers/frigates to deal with the small ships, and of BSs to deal with the cruisers bringing combined fleets into play.

Alot people will be upset about this. but i for one belive its the best course of action if we want eve to last for many more years. Because the people crying now would also be the people crying later when you see nothing but carriers and MOMs out there.

Just my 2 cents.

Shalis


This guys making a lot of sense tbh.

C.


Icome4u
Caldari
28 Meows Later
Infinitas Consortium
Posted - 2007.10.24 02:13:00 - [70]
 

Edited by: Icome4u on 24/10/2007 02:15:02
Not bad, but 3 accounts still pending cancellation.

Edit: I just realized how bad CCP got pwned Laughing Serves them right for proposing idiotic 'ideas'. Btw where is my apology from the couple DEV's who treated us like crap/sh*t?

Daan Sai
Polytrope
Posted - 2007.10.24 02:14:00 - [71]
 

One simple suggestion:

To encourage refitting for purpose, split drone control modules into drone control modules and fighter control modules. Then you need to decide on all out fighters/ drones or a mix and fit appropriately.



Fusedbrain
Amarr
Viziam
Posted - 2007.10.24 02:22:00 - [72]
 


CCP get a frigin clue.

It's time to play something else for a while. You skill for something and they just turn around and change it. This is all B***SH*T, you've seen the last of my money.

Come on Star Trek Online.

Mizuho Tsukihime
Tsukihime Syndicate
Posted - 2007.10.24 02:22:00 - [73]
 

If the changes towards carrier/mothership is going to stay the same, please do allow mothership (specifically mothership) the ability to dock up on any outpost/station so that the MS pilot can start switching to other ship out of the useless ship.

Seriously, I don't see the needs to have any changes like every other poster here in-which already said. What you need is either specialize modules or make another new sets of carriers (just like T1,T2,T3 bs) with different set of roles. Assault carrier / Logistic carrier would be better than having lost the ability because of the changes CCP plannning to make.

Every carrier is definately vulnerable if soloing, with 5 fighters... its just plain jokes. Even MS falls to ship of 10~15 supports if they're not careful, flying alone.

Carrier/Mothership are not the "end-game" ship as what CCP internally believe, they are just like Titan with roles on their own which require support of every small ships available to be effective at frontline. Come to think bout it, carriers to get nerf will become kind of dominix with more effective HP.

Clerence Thomas
Black Lotus Heavy Industries
Ethereal Dawn
Posted - 2007.10.24 02:23:00 - [74]
 

Okay, so the problems are versatility of the carrier and the player base running you out of high end content.

You won't fix the versatility problem by nerfing self defense; period - doesn't matter how you do it, you'll simply make the ships into epeens. Back when I was in a frig I did everything in 1 fit, didn't matter what it was and that carried on through all my classes to carrier. Was I uber at any given specific task? Heck no. The fit compensated for what my character saw as "design flaws", aka the disadvantages it took to be aspected. But I was happy, could do most things and died promptly when I met a pvp that went aspected, that's just part of play.

What you need to do is offer specialization choices. Don't nerf existing ships, add new ships that excel at the individual tasks. Give us hybrids between haulers and freighters with jump drives; you'll see the number of carriers used for this drop to near nil. (proposal - 3/6 capacity of a freighter with jump drive and carrier range/fuel consumption)

Want more delegation? Add a new carrier type that gets bonuses to fighters while delegating - more fighters total in flight, more DPS, whatever. Make 'em pay for it some other way - reduce that types' ability to haul ships, remove the refit ability, whatever.

On the matter of ability to fight off multiple types of opponents - sure, in a small 1v1 engagement I can see that vs an inexperienced/ill equipped opponent; I do just that, carry multiple fleets of drone types. This doesn't really do much besides give me a choice of what i'm replacing after the fight, a competent pvp shreds nearly any drone fleet I throw at them in short order while I can't control what they are doing (damped to hell shortly after launching the drones), then I sit there for an hour while the enemy does one of 3 things: 1) runs out of ammo and goes home 2) is driven off by friendlies 3) blows me up.

As to other "considerations":
* Give me support vessels that can actually travel with the carrier and i'll have the fleet with me.
* Such characters are always valuable in fleet fights - see "blob warfare"
* A std carrier pilot will also need an extra 5 minutes to get full firepower out, presuming "wingman" isn't pwnd before the fighters get delegated.
* Carriers should _not_ be on the front line, they should be _near_ (parked at a planet or starbase) and projecting firepower (aka delegating)
* Okay. That's cute. *shrug* What for? To compensate for being made defenseless? Okay, welcome to a class of ship being mislabeled - carriers, aka fleet transports. Better plan - make a fleet transport class.

As to capable of:
* Not really - in a 1v1 fight and properly fitted, maybe. But given isk valued weighting (a more realistic scenerio) and the carrier is screwed.
* Nonsense - I can't maintain even a single remote shield transporter on my thanatos with my T2 mod/rig charging setup. I don't have triage mode, not worth the cost or risk to the chassis to ever use.
* Duh - you didn't give us the jump freighter, so we had to use _something_.
* Maybe - if they live long enough. I personally haven't used them in that capacity since the starbase/drone nerf. I can't be stationary in a safe spot long enough to re-equip people while projecting firepower, and w/o the shield the risk to chassis and person being supplied are too great. I go out without support stores when I launch for a fight.

As to being effective against small and large ships at the same time - Again, NONSENSE. It takes time to recall drones and launch a new set.

Basic message here: Put away the nerf bats and get out the modeling software to fix the problem. Excessive nerf bat usage won't fix anything.

Lightof God
Caldari
Reikoku
IT Alliance
Posted - 2007.10.24 02:24:00 - [75]
 

second post in the thread just to make my point a wee bit clearer CCP

Subscription Status: Active
Cancellation Pending

To CCP: Not good enough come back when you get the notion that nerfing the carrier and mothership is good out of your mind.

To players: canceling my subscription felt really really good knowing I wont have to deal with the way CCP likes to handle things anymore.
Any suggestions for games as good as eve once was, i am now in the market unless something changes.

ThisAlt IsUseless
Posted - 2007.10.24 02:25:00 - [76]
 

Originally by: Cailais
Originally by: Shalis
Originally by: Baun
Originally by: CCP kieron
Carrier and Motherships were designed to be a combined effort among corporation members where they rely on the group, and be pretty much defenseless against small ship classes without support.


Hate to break it to you buddy, they already are.

You will NEVER see a solo carrier actively fighting ANYWHERE that lives long. The same holds true for motherships in 0.0.

Seriously, do you people play this game? I won't even deploy my Nyx on grid without another MS or 6-7 carriers in support in a CYNO-JAMMED SYSTEM. If I deploy even with that level of support in other systems I risk getting completely pwned while I sit and watch helplessly.

Wake up, and stop believing your own bull****.



I think you and alot of other people are missing the point. Understandable since your minds are problably clouded at this time due to the strong emotions flowing around.

I can see CCPs point. Its not that carriers/moms do not require support right now, they do, but the support right now is provided by other carriers/moms. As it is there is not point in flying nothing else. The only reason people aren't flying carriers/moms now is cause they don't have the skill points/isk to do it. Give it another year and all you will see is carriers/moms.

All CCP is trying to do is make it so that there will be more diversity in fleets. The easy way would had been to make carriers/moms more expensive but that would only prolong the inevitable, it just would take extra time to reach the same end of all carriers/moms flying around. So they took the harder way which is to nerf the carriers/moms so that they don't become the obvious choice for everyone to fly in.

I like the idea of giving the option of carriers/moms to specialize. Opens up a whole new dimension to them. But personally i think they should take away drones from carriers/moms completly. Let them have fighters only. This would force Carriers/moms to require a escort of cruisers/frigates to deal with the small ships, and of BSs to deal with the cruisers bringing combined fleets into play.

Alot people will be upset about this. but i for one belive its the best course of action if we want eve to last for many more years. Because the people crying now would also be the people crying later when you see nothing but carriers and MOMs out there.

Just my 2 cents.

Shalis


This guys making a lot of sense tbh.

C.




yes, in 1 year close to everyone in lowsec and 0.0 are going to use carrier only

no battleship, no cruiser, no battlecruiser, no hac and no command ship


why flying something small when you can use an easy mode which is a carrier?


i prefer ccp fixing it now before it's too late

Blackhorizon
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2007.10.24 02:27:00 - [77]
 

Excellent post Nozh.

Vily
Eternity INC.
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2007.10.24 02:28:00 - [78]
 

Quote:
We did not expect the requests to prematurely end dear Zulupark's existence in this universe, some of which were *very* imaginative and in more ways than we thought possible.


did you guys fire zulupark?

ThisAlt IsUseless
Posted - 2007.10.24 02:28:00 - [79]
 

create many new carrier, 3-4, with specific role, like any class right now

then for the current carrier in game, allow the owner to "transfer" his current carrier into a new one in that new list of choice

Crovan
The Praxis Initiative
Sodalitas XX
Posted - 2007.10.24 02:30:00 - [80]
 

Originally by: Bein Glorious

People say Star Wars Galaxies failed because SOE didn't listen to their customers and tried to make the game "the way they wanted it, not what the players wanted" or something like that, and try to draw parallels between them and CCP. I never played Star Wars Galaxies, but what I heard really happened was that they listened to the wrong players, the ones who wanted Jedi to be easily accessible, which made every other class not worth playing.

Maybe some of you should think about that, and post again when you can act like an adult.


^ THIS

Are cap blobs a problem? Yes. Should something be done? Probably, is it anything resembling the previously suggested nerf? No!

Right now, we're seeing capital blobs become a big player in sovereignty warfare. This problem, in my view, does not lie with problems with the ships themselves, but rather with the mechanics of sovereignty. It now takes a ridiculous amount of time and resources to beat an entrenched enemy in the sov war, meaning that the cap blob floats around longer and longer.

The problem of the cap blob is the mechanics of the game, in my opinion.

Vily
Eternity INC.
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2007.10.24 02:31:00 - [81]
 

Edited by: Vily on 24/10/2007 02:31:53
here is a thought.

where the **** is the ensalver? cause i know there is at least one person in CCP who should know what the **** is going on.

seriously though.... has nobody in ccp every gotten his carrier totally owned?

Sertan Deras
Gallente
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2007.10.24 02:31:00 - [82]
 

Yesterday CCP was the delusional one, with that misguided five fighter idea.

Today, it's the Carrier pilots who have lost their minds and can't see anything objectively. If you guys can't see how popular Carriers are becoming, and why they are becoming that popular (hint: flexibility without refitting), then you are just as blind as CCP was yesterday. You just don't want to admit it, because it might mean you have to change your tactics slightly and *gasp* have to specialize with modules just like every other ship in the game.

Apocalytica Insomnia
Blue Labs
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2007.10.24 02:34:00 - [83]
 

Edited by: Apocalytica Insomnia on 24/10/2007 02:54:18
Edited by: Apocalytica Insomnia on 24/10/2007 02:53:39
Edited by: Apocalytica Insomnia on 24/10/2007 02:52:34
Edited by: Apocalytica Insomnia on 24/10/2007 02:47:23
New Messenger, thats interisting, not really, was to be exspected tbh.
Anyways, I'd first like to comment directly to what has been written up by CCP Nozh, with the first thing that comes to my mind, and then gonna offer, based on this Dev-Blog solutions, so here we go:

Response:


Originally by: CCP Nozh

end dear Zulupark's existence in this universe, some of which were *very* imaginative.
We'd like to point out all design matters are ratified in groups

Can Eris Discordia please take a Carrier wreck and throw it at Hammerhead, Oveur, and your janitor friend?
Originally by: CCP Nozh

In fact, no other ship classes are as versatile and powerful without requiring you to refit for it.


In fact, you need to refit, because for a shield-boosting or supportative role on a Pos, you want have a nice Rack of Highslot Logistic Modules and more Cap recharge. For close Combat, you want to go with a bunch of Smartbombs (enemy drones) and Drone Controls (more Drones to put out), and a rock solid Tank. For ratting you might wanna use Salvagers and Tractor beems *lol* and for Transporting and POS-Fueling you want at least a Cloaking device, incase you get bumped by your favourite Station model, or need to slowboat to your Large Autocannon.

Your right, you can have everything on it, but then you need to compromise, like Ratting-Rokh and Sniper rokh, more examples can be chosen easily, but i agree the compromise could be a BIT more

Quote:

We don‘t want Carriers and Motherships to be as effective against smaller ships (Frigates, Destroyers, Cruisers and Battlecruisers) while being just as effective against the larger ships (Battleships and up) at the same time.


Seriously, does anyone see the problem with a single Frigate scrambling a Carrier (for 20 minutes at a cost of under 1 million and with about 3 hours skill time), or a Dictor dropping a bubble and GTFO ?


End of first Part, since i can only use 4k Characters, my Solutions you'll find a couple posts later (doh someone posted first)



Athena Volo
Gallente
Posted - 2007.10.24 02:35:00 - [84]
 

Ok, this makes even less sense.

The carrier must be nerfed because its too 'Jack-of-All-Trades master of all?'

Are these the same carriers I've been looking at for the longest time? The same carriers that are big, fat targets that take 40's of seconds to align for warp, and that the new suped up interceptors will be able to warp scram with impunity? The same carriers that require another person to be able to move from system to system? The same carriers that many people have said is suicide to operate solo?

I really don't get it. The carrier is unique, yes, that through massive amounts of training it can be fitted to do many things, but it can't excel at all things at once.

There are many other ships that can do the things a carrier does,
and do them better, for cheaper, with less training.

If you must force the carrier to specalize in something, then make sure it does that very well. I'd suggest the following:

Triage Module: Loose the siege mode. Boosts remote repair at the cost of some (not all!) offsensive capabilities (+repair +cap -extra drones)
Flight Deck Module: Allows the effective oporation of figters, boosted fighter capability, at the cost of some (not all!) defensive capability (+fighter +drone damage -cap -repair ammount)
Command Module: Allows the improved use of gang assist modules, with a mild Titan-esque gang bonus, at the cost of being mediocre on offense and defence.(+gang -cap -extra drones)

I'd say leave the hauling to the Jump Freighters.

If that is still too Swiss Army knife for you, then make 3-4 different, specalized capital ships that do one thing.

It still baffles me that a carrier is a invinible, over 9000 ship capable of fighting off whole armies, nay nations, all by itself, with no support at all! I mean, who knew? Can we rename it Chuck Noris? or how about Sparta?

Alenar Rumanev
Minmatar
Beyond Divinity Inc
Posted - 2007.10.24 02:37:00 - [85]
 

Originally by: Bein Glorious
A good number of the people in this thread are being completely unreasonable. Some of you should act like adults instead of nitpicking minor details, avoiding important points intentionally, and pulling up archaic arguments (for instance, the fact that Sensor Damps will be nerfed in Trinity and shouldn't pose such a huge threat to carriers as they do now, and they are almost certainly taking steps to reduce lag). They aren't trying to completely remove the ships from the game, so don't be dumb and insinuate that they are; that is completely irrational and unedifyingly juvenile. There are a couple people in this thread who should honestly feel ashamed of themselves.

That said, it would be best for CCP to put less emphasis on the problems with solo carriers. A carrier with no support whatsoever - flying around like a big dominix - is practically harmless. Only huge megablobs of carriers (such as twenty, thirty, or more) are really a major problem.



There is a reason why, in Team Fortress 2, having a team of all Heavies or all Medics is a bad idea. There is a reason why, in Company of Heroes, training Snipers and nothing else is a losing strategy. All CCP is trying to do is induce that same kind of thing with carriers.

People say Star Wars Galaxies failed because SOE didn't listen to their customers and tried to make the game "the way they wanted it, not what the players wanted" or something like that, and try to draw parallels between them and CCP. I never played Star Wars Galaxies, but what I heard really happened was that they listened to the wrong players, the ones who wanted Jedi to be easily accessible, which made every other class not worth playing.

Maybe some of you should think about that, and post again when you can act like an adult.


1: The current sensor damp nerf will not do anything to help out carriers. In its current form, the dampening pilot would just choose to dampen range, as they already have a hideous lock time for non-capitals anyhow. Remember also that sensor boosters got the nerf, and almost every carrier in combat uses at least one.

2: The only reason carrier blobs of 30-40 carriers are seen in fleet fights these days is they are immune to lag. Deployed fighters operate server side, like POS guns, meaning in a dying node filled with 600+ people, they still do damage. None of the proposed changes in either of the devblogs fix this problem. The defense still can set up, deploy fighters, and wait for the enemy to jump into totalagdeath. At least now the attackers can try to deploy their own fighters. This will change if they have to be assigned. New UI or not, assigning them in 10+ minute lag would be pointless.

Honestly, people forget that the expression "Jack of all trades" is followed by "master of none." There are ships that can or will be able to do almost everything a carrier can do, but better and/or much cheaper and safer. Fix the lag in fleet fights and make logistics ships useful in them and you will see the carrier blobs abate. A BS heavy fleet is vastly more useful and maneuverable in a lag free environment than a carrier heavy fleet, and I certainly know which one I'd rather have.

TrevorReznik
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.10.24 02:38:00 - [86]
 

Doesn't go far enough:
1) Remote delegation needs to be removed
2) Stacking penalize remote reps/cap transfers of all sizes.

That should fix the problems here.

Scorched Evil
R A G E
NEGATIVE TENDENCIES
Posted - 2007.10.24 02:40:00 - [87]
 

Kieron, you are steering this game in the exact same direction as SWG. I hope you guys have another MMO project on the go, you'll need it at this rate.

Mecinia Lua
Galactic Express
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2007.10.24 02:40:00 - [88]
 

Well at least you guys listen :). If SOE listened as well as you guys then their games would be doing better :)


Kelevraen
Caldari
Heavy Aerospace Industrial
Posted - 2007.10.24 02:40:00 - [89]
 

Regarding the changes to sisi, does that mean the Eos will get unnerfed? Right now it only has 75Mbit of bandwidth, 2 less turret slots and a significantly smaller drone bay.

I know it's a powerful ship, I fly one probably 85% of the time. But it wasn't a "solopwnmobile" - just one of the best ships for 1v1 situations. Get even 2 other ships against it (of equal caliber.. 2 bs, 2 bc even) and suddenly it isn't all that hot. A passive drake can tank more than a maxed out tech-2 fitted Eos. To get an insane tank on the Eos you need some of the best faction fitting available. That's not right.

Anyways, just my 2c.

I think the carrier changes are interesting, but we'll have to see. People will either adapt to it or they'll die. I'll probably still get a Thanatos someday :)

ThisAlt IsUseless
Posted - 2007.10.24 02:41:00 - [90]
 

Edited by: ThisAlt IsUseless on 24/10/2007 02:40:50
oups


Pages: first : previous : 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... : 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