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 : ... 26 27 28 29 [30] 31 32 33 34 ... : last (38)

Author Topic

Julius Rigel
Sub-warp Racing Venture
Posted - 2007.10.27 02:27:00 - [871]
 

Alright. So carriers are shrugging off attacks from battecruisers you say? Let's compare the size of my Myrmidon (and it's medium turrets) to the size of a Thanatos;

If a Myrmidon was a person, then attacking a thanatos would roughly equal picking up a handgun (or six if you can be bothered carrying them) and trying to shoot down a royal navy aircraft carrier. Yeah. A carrier is more than 87 times the size of your average battlecruiser. Now the models aren't to scale for the obvious reason that it would be a bit messy having such huge ships, but shouldn't we atleast let them have the proportional firepower?

Aside from the fact that these pilots spent years and billions of isk training for and buying their carriers and actually deserve their wtfpwnmachines, I just don't think the game would be very fun if everything was fair and balanced.
But heck, what do i know? I'm just a lowly care bear. I'll just sit around and wait until all the ships are nerfed to oblivion because someone is crying that their iteron keeps getting ganked in low sec. Then it won't really matter what you train for, because we all have a fair equal chance of killing eachother.

"PVP? Oh you mean shooting eachother? Yeah. We stopped doing that somewhere around the time when they gave asteroids a 'fair and equal chance' to defend tehmselves."

In fact, why don't we just give new players maxed skills from the start? That way they won't have to worry at all about older players having an 'unfair advantage'.

GeneralTaoYeng
Posted - 2007.10.27 02:53:00 - [872]
 

I offer:
1 ---to forbid Drons to all ships except for those that on them specialize. (it should increase considerably productivity of a server + Drons do not bring visual admiration in fight as they practically are not appreciable). That players would not be upset, to allow players to distribute spent sp from area Drons between other areas on the discretion.
2 ---Carriers. It is necessary to enable to them to transport or faiters/drones, or players (pilots of fighters) which were prepared with the ships frigat/assault frigat/interceptor/and have landed in drone bey. (these pilots jump from system in system together with carriers). In that case the pilot carriers can borrow in repair of other ships while its fire power is made by pilots.
3 ---Each player after a current as will study skill battleship up to 5, starts to study the capital the ship as there is no other alternative. I think to you it is necessary to enable the profound specialization in the chosen area, type of the ship, the weapon (an example: the pilot frigat after studying 5 levels, can continue to study this skill till 10-20-30 levels. Then there will be less pilots a capital of the ships, but more than specialized pilots in area,
I apologize. I badly write on English and have translated all through the translator. Yours faithfully ТаоCool

Sir Coldfire
Posted - 2007.10.27 03:14:00 - [873]
 

I don't get it. Why is CCP always changing stuff around to make older characters more penalized. Is this your way of rewarding players who have stuck for years training for something that takes two years? No. Wait. You're listening to your marketing or sales guys who want to please younger players. Please look at the negative outcry this has caused. I think this has to be the stupidest change in CCP history.

Julius Rigel
Sub-warp Racing Venture
Posted - 2007.10.27 03:23:00 - [874]
 

Originally by: Julius Rigel
^<sarcastic post above>^


All I really wanted to say was, CCP, you are taking all the excitement out of the game. This being said from the point of view of a person getting anally ****d by a carrier, not a carrier pilot myself.

Fair != Fun

Equal == Boring

That's all I have to say.

Aman Sul
Caldari
Destructive Influence
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2007.10.27 03:57:00 - [875]
 

CCP needs to stop looking at ships on paper and see how they work in the TQ.


Jungle KungFu
Minmatar
Native Freshfood
Posted - 2007.10.27 04:00:00 - [876]
 

Originally by: Julius Rigel

"PVP? Oh you mean shooting eachother? Yeah. We stopped doing that somewhere around the time when they gave asteroids a 'fair and equal chance' to defend tehmselves."


If I ever lock a roid and it deploys drones on me am quitting EVE.

Malcum Blakhurst
Posted - 2007.10.27 06:31:00 - [877]
 

I've just read a couple of replies to this thread that your preventing ships from being stored inside the carrier if they have items in their cargo holds.

This is not the end of the world but incredibly annoying. My problem with this as someone before me pointed out that it is excessively annoying to have a ship kitted out for PVP stored in your hold for your gang mates to use and not have any ammo in it ready to go. Sure they can get it from the corp hanger array - but then you have the time taken for them to flick through all the tabs and try and work out which one it is in. Also has anyone else noticed how laggy the corp hangers are these days - not just on carriers but in stations and POS's as well.

Please allow ships to be stored with items in their cargo. If I am correct which I may not be - I heard rumours that the rorqual could only store industrial ships. To make carriers stop being the uber 0.0 haulers they are simply disallow the storage of industrial ships in theri hangers. No its not a good solution but if your hell bent on doing it I would rather not be able to carry industrial ships then not have combat ships in the hold with no ammo in them.

As far as the whole carrier nerf thing goes - I still maintain that the best most logical solution is to remove Drone control units from the game entirely leaving carriers with a max of 10 drones in space and MS's with a max of 20 drones.

This reduces carrier DPS by a theoretical 5 drones - not that most people have 5 DCU's on at one time - I certainly don't just enough to give me 10 fighters and the rest are remote reps and SB's.

2ndly I would remove the ability to remotely delegate fighters - this forces players with carriers to be on the front line with the rest of the fleet. As has already been pointed out to you multiple times carrier go down very fast unsupported and cam be damped to hell and back very easily - this means that carrier pilots have to risk their ships - just like every other ship in the game - to do their sub par damage as well as being completely open to EW.

I personally think delegation was a stupid idea in the first place as it results in carriers hugging POS's and spider tanking. At least if you remove delegation ability they will have to spider tank in harms way.

To reinforce the thread line - Carriers are not a swiss army knife. To prove this I cite the example that I own two carriers - one for hauling and one for combat related stuff.
This is because the combat related carrier is kinda crap for hauling - where as the hauling carrier is extremely bad for combat(4 x expanded cargoholds + 3 cargo rigs does not a good tank make.
It also requires me to have 3 1mn MWD's to reduce capacitor amount so that my 3 cap booster 800's can recharge my entire cap and make me ready to jump again in less then 5 mins.
This just goes to show that I've already specialised a carrier in game with current ingame tools to reduces its abilities in one are to make it better at another.

No more modules or nerfs or buffs are needed to do this - the tools are already there.

I'd rather you leave carriers completely alone and have them slightly underpowered as they are considered by most carrier pilots at the moment then nerf them into useless oblivion.

There is no need to introduce modules to make it a better hauler or better at combat - you've got t2 freighters for better hauling and t2 BS's for better dmg. Just leave carriers alone.

Acceptable nerf - disallow Titans and MS's from 0.4 - 0.1 space. Everything else is fine - nothing to see here move along...

- Mal****Blakhurst

Jason Edwards
Internet Tough Guy
Spreadsheets Online
Posted - 2007.10.27 07:33:00 - [878]
 

Well before I get to the topic I want to explain something. Lets take 2 gallente cruisers for example: The Thorax and the Vexor. How do these 2 ships usually get fitted? The thorax is typically setup with medium hybrid turrets. Most usually a MWD and blasters. Now lets look at those bonuses:
Special Ability: 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage per level and 5% less penalty to max capacitor for MicroWarpdrive usage per level
How about the vexor?
Well typically I see the people in videos equipping 3 rails or blasters and some vampires. However use drones for the real damage. Now lets look at those bonuses:
Special Ability: 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage per level and 10% bonus to drone hitpoints, damage and mining yield per skill level.

If you notice. People equip ships out to optimize the bonuses OF that ship. So now lets look at Carriers.

Gallente Carrier Skill Bonuses:
50% bonus to Capital Shield and Armor transfer range per level
5% bonus to deployed Fighters’ damage per level
Can deploy 1 additional Fighter per level
200% bonus to Fighter control range
99% reduction in CPU need for Warfare Link modules
99% reduction in CPU need for Tactical Logistics Reconfiguration modules


So lets see. They will equip capital shield and/or armor modules to take advantage of that bonus.
They use fighters to take advantage of not 1, not 2, but 3 bonuses towards fighters.
Leaving obviously the ability to pop in warfare link modules and Tactical Logistics Reconfiguration modules. So they also do this.

Leave a ship which has significant amount of drone DPS and support as they may transfer shields and armor. Now lets look at this list...


* Damage dealing (Small scale PVP, Capital PVP, Starbase Warfare)
* Logistics (Small scale PVP, Capital PVP, Starbase Warfare)
* Support (as in bringing along spare modules and ships behind enemy lines)
* PvE (Ratting, missions, complexes etc.)
* 0.0 Transporting
* POS fueling

-Damage dealing.... no crap you gave the ships damage mods for fighters.... they are going to use this.
-Logistics.... I take it that this is the whole shield and armor transfer... ok than.
-Support....this is moreso rarer. Usually only done by more experienced or rich groups. This can be quite effective no doubt. I've seen one carrier in a fleet battle hold onto quite a number of tackler ships. Essentially they know their tacklers would be killed so they had backup ships ready. It worked well.
-PVE.... this is more rare as its more risk than reward usually for carriers to do this. However, I concede they do this. Though afaik the use of capitals in low sec missions has been effectively stopped. So again they are wide open for getting attacked.

NONE of the above honestly should be stopped. You sort of are expected to do this based solely on the bonuses which had been given too the ship. The next couple things however shouldn't be happening so much with carriers.

0.0 Transporting AND POS fueling
Frankly. This is only happening because freighters are too slow and are far too hard to defend to move them around in low sec or no sec. You can get significant space with expanders tech 2 and 2 iterons or whatever in the ship maintenance plus the corp hangar.

This has however been solved by the fact that at least according to rumours and pictures. There will be some T2 freighters in the works. Which will have jumpdrives built in. This will very quickly replace carriers in this role for sure.


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

Limiting carriers to only 5 fighters and than assigning will pretty much command the carriers to be sitting 2 inches from a POS bubble and lined up to fly right back into the pos bubble for sure.

Jason Edwards
Internet Tough Guy
Spreadsheets Online
Posted - 2007.10.27 08:04:00 - [879]
 

Take this situation for example. You aren't part of this huge interstellar alliance. Really you're a smallish corp with 50-100 people. You get into this battle. Lets say you have:

2 carriers, 8 battleships, and 10 support(smaller ships)

the evil other side has 3 carriers, 4 battleships, and 15 support.

You all goto straight up battle in a low sec system which is 0.3 but is smack dab in between 0.5 systems. So battle goes on and basically your fleet is kicking the other guys bigtime. However some annoying little rooks are in the enemies support group. They start jamming your battleship spine but none of your support can stop them from doing this. Suddenly you find your battleships getting pounded and aren't giving out any pounding. Luckily though the carriers with their 5 fighters and having assigned a total of 10 other fighters to the smaller support. These fighters are doing significant damage to the enemy.

Anyway the battle continues on and the support that were controlling your fighters die. That sucks... what does that mean? Well I'm not sure if that means those fighters automatically return to drone bay or what. Suddenly the enemy break the tanks and all that is left is 1 battleship and the 2 carriers. vs 3 carriers and 3 battleships. All of the support has been destroyed. Suddenly its basically up to a max of 15 fighters + that 1 battleship's weapons. VS 30 fighters and 3 battleship's weapons.

Not very good odds. Now lets say for example that these 3 carriers only have 1 capital armor repairer each and tech 1 resistances. Their tanks are utter crap. While the 2 carriers have centum x-type and similar tanks. Their carrier is worth roughly a billion but their tank is worth over 5 billion. These 2 carriers can permatank these 3 carriers and 3 battleships. However due to the fact that they cannot pop out their respective 15 fighters. They cannot bare the chance of ever bringing out enough dps ever to stop this battle. Do they basically have to sit there and wonder how nice it would be to simply be doing something else? Do they have to rely on their friends to jump 15 jumps to buy a new ship and equip it and come back? before they can fight again? Or do you want them to be docking and grabbing those rookie ships just so the carriers can actually use their fighters?

In reality the carrier would sit 2 inches from the bubble and assign those fighters. When the owner dies and they come return... no harm done.


PS if it's made that you can assign 5 fighters too a person and if that person dies or logs off or whatever... those 5 fighters just become controllable by you... you're just going to get people breaking the system so they get control of all 15 right out the batting cage.

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.

Make it so fighters can't ever hit the smaller ships. I don't know if it's called tracking speed on drones. Frankly I think it would be moreso easier to make it like railguns for example.

The capital sized rails have a signature resolution of 1000m and 425mm railguns are 400m while the 150mm rails are 40m. If the fighters work on the same idea... Add in the whole tracking thing also... than you effectively end the whole fighters pwning everything problem. Which really won't change much because frankly it's just as easy to send 15x hobgoblin tech 2s after a frigate as it is fighters.

Jason Edwards
Internet Tough Guy
Spreadsheets Online
Posted - 2007.10.27 08:19:00 - [880]
 

Quote:
To make carriers stop being the uber 0.0 haulers they are simply disallow the storage of industrial ships in theri hangers. No its not a good solution but if your hell bent on doing it I would rather not be able to carry industrial ships then not have combat ships in the hold with no ammo in them.


This is a decent idea. Except the fact that it would be much easier to provide the jump capable freighters. To be the much more efficient replacement in this role.

Quote:
Acceptable nerf - disallow Titans and MS's from 0.4 - 0.1 space. Everything else is fine - nothing to see here move along...

While this is a decent idea as these super capitals are extremly difficult to kill in the space. It would suddenly make trading of such supercapitals extremly more difficult. As the trading system as it is... is very iffy now. Next.. how would you disallow supercapitals into empire? Would they simply not be allowed to jump into such systems? Do you understand the intense cut on such a system that would be? Do you know how many fleets warp around with supercapitals through low sec simply to move areas that they are in. To attack or whatever... I've even got screenshots of pretty large capital fleets with 5+ mothers and quite a few carriers... just jumping through low sec. They never targeted a single person or anything.

Simply by eliminating low sec for motherships... it might mean that they wouldn't even be capable of jumping to different areas on theatre.

Lucius Amarriantis
Amarr
Viziam
Posted - 2007.10.27 09:55:00 - [881]
 

I will simply reply with what I stated in response to the last dev blog on carriers.

Where is your statistical evidence that carriers are efficient combat vessels? Are you somehow using some mystical calculator that grants a carrier a much higher expected DPS than the other ship fit tools out there atm?

I like the idea of making a carrier choose its role before the fact - runs in line with everything else, but you seriously need to drop the fighter control limitation, many people have spent profuse time training to increase control amount.

What I would propose is that if yoiu make a change on a level such as this then you should give every cahracter with relevant skills the option to redistribute those specific skill point in other areas - either that or flat out refund the cash for the time it took to train said skill. To make a comparison its like buying a new car with a cool cd player and multi-changer in the back. 1 year later a rep from the car company turns up and takes it all out stating "We dont do them any more so we need to take your out now" - orly - see you in court would the response. Dont abuse the fact that this is only a game - people still commit REAL time and REAL money subscribing to play the game.

Lucius

Lucius Amarriantis
Amarr
Viziam
Posted - 2007.10.27 09:56:00 - [882]
 

Originally by: Jason Edwards
Quote:
To make carriers stop being the uber 0.0 haulers they are simply disallow the storage of industrial ships in theri hangers. No its not a good solution but if your hell bent on doing it I would rather not be able to carry industrial ships then not have combat ships in the hold with no ammo in them.


This is a decent idea. Except the fact that it would be much easier to provide the jump capable freighters. To be the much more efficient replacement in this role.

Quote:
Acceptable nerf - disallow Titans and MS's from 0.4 - 0.1 space. Everything else is fine - nothing to see here move along...

While this is a decent idea as these super capitals are extremly difficult to kill in the space. It would suddenly make trading of such supercapitals extremly more difficult. As the trading system as it is... is very iffy now. Next.. how would you disallow supercapitals into empire? Would they simply not be allowed to jump into such systems? Do you understand the intense cut on such a system that would be? Do you know how many fleets warp around with supercapitals through low sec simply to move areas that they are in. To attack or whatever... I've even got screenshots of pretty large capital fleets with 5+ mothers and quite a few carriers... just jumping through low sec. They never targeted a single person or anything.

Simply by eliminating low sec for motherships... it might mean that they wouldn't even be capable of jumping to different areas on theatre.


Enter the use of covert jump ships?

gordon cain
Posted - 2007.10.27 10:21:00 - [883]
 

Been testing the new carrier stuff out on test server and must say I am more and more in favour of the carrier nerf/role change.

With ships not able to store anything in their bays carriers are moved from logistics to combat boats again.

But CCP have to reduce cost for jump freighter to at least 1.5 bil in order to not leave 0.0 hanging if they go ahead with this thing.

Gordon Cain

Okkie2
Posted - 2007.10.27 10:40:00 - [884]
 

Originally by: gordon cain

But CCP have to reduce cost for jump freighter to at least 1.5 bil in order to not leave 0.0 hanging if they go ahead with this thing.



Those ships will hardly ever be killed when used correctly and thus their price shouldn't be a real problem.

Cargo Hustler
Posted - 2007.10.27 11:48:00 - [885]
 

Originally by: Sir Coldfire
I don't get it. Why is CCP always changing stuff around to make older characters more penalized. Is this your way of rewarding players who have stuck for years training for something that takes two years? No. Wait. You're listening to your marketing or sales guys who want to please younger players. Please look at the negative outcry this has caused. I think this has to be the stupidest change in CCP history.


Whine more please.

Older players get the best of everything tbh - new ships with hugh skill req = older players get them frist

Capitol ships with costing billions of isk = older players get them first

Pre-Nerf uber ships, whichever of the new toys is overpowered = older plays get to abuse nubs in them for months before they get nerfed.

The new players, have to train harder... oh wait they CANT train harder, they have to WAIT, then when they finally get to anything close to catching up, it all gets nerfed and the next vet-player-toy is released.


Zylatis
Baptism oF Fire
Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
Posted - 2007.10.27 12:06:00 - [886]
 

Edited by: Zylatis on 27/10/2007 12:09:24
This blows. again.

Eve might be YOUR product, but WE play it, meaning if we dont want something in, it shouldnt be in.

Dazenil
Caldari
Mercenaries of Andosia
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2007.10.27 13:15:00 - [887]
 

Edited by: Dazenil on 27/10/2007 13:16:12
Edited by: Dazenil on 27/10/2007 13:15:41
Wait , Wait Wait Wait for a second
.....

CCP Also Plays In EvE - From time to time - Now That makes me think.

Did anybody from CCP Ever flye'd a carrier Question
not To Check How it exits a station - but Realy how it goes from 0.0 to empire and fights a decent BS Pilot Question

1) Now just To let You know - A good Raven pilot who Spent His Sp on Shielding and Cruise missiles insted on jump skills drones and spaceship command - and Isk On moduals and not the carrier itself - Took Down all fighters of a carrier - alone - and almost poped it . Shocked

2) That apochalipse day that was On TQ some time ago - With perfect skills and all -
anybody tested the current carriers?
with perfect skills on both sides - The Raven still pops the Fighters and Starts destroing the Chimera...

Im training for 2 years now for a chimera - and You are getting ready to Destroy all of my efford. ugh

Now All im Asking , CCP , Is Why Are You Nurfing Such a Defenceless Ship Crying or Very sad -
There is no reason of doing so.

Sorry if my english suks,
Daz.






shupaco yaloo
Posted - 2007.10.27 14:05:00 - [888]
 

Originally by: Zylatis
Edited by: Zylatis on 27/10/2007 12:09:24
This blows. again.

Eve might be YOUR product, but WE play it, meaning if we dont want something in, it shouldnt be in.
whiners would make this game into hello kitty so go away Laughing

Vashani
Posted - 2007.10.27 14:10:00 - [889]
 

Edited by: Vashani on 27/10/2007 14:11:29
CCP really needs to stop trying to enforce ship roles. It's like the Germans nerfing their 88's (designed as AAA) so they couldn't be used as tank killers. The entire concept is idiotic. What CCP really needs to do ditch ship design (they suck at it anyhow) and let players design their own ships in game. There are several good strategy games that go this route and it works great.

While I'm on the subject, CCP also needs to stop trying to shoehorn players into their idea of how to play the game. We play the game to have fun and to get away from real life for !*(#&&*(@) sake! It's no fun when some idiot kid thinks he knows what's best and decides that you shouldn't be doing X and should instead be part of some AYVB alliance playing PvP.

Solo2110
Amarr
Viziam
Posted - 2007.10.27 14:28:00 - [890]
 

NO, NO, and before you ask, NO.

Carriers take more than a year of training to be ready for. STOP Changing things at a whim. If you take away the ability to deploy 15 drones with regular carriers, I'm cancelling my accounts.

The devs have been making a consisten stream of changes over the last several months that are based on things that the players don't want. First NOS, then gcs in carriers, and now you are going to make carriers -worthless- after I spent a year of training for carriers.


Druadan
Syrus Speculations
Posted - 2007.10.27 14:31:00 - [891]
 

New carrier nerf, conceptually even worse than the fighter idiocy.

Game dev thread on the subject.

Hyron
Corp 1 Allstars
The Requiem
Posted - 2007.10.27 14:55:00 - [892]
 

Originally by: Cargo Hustler
Originally by: Sir Coldfire
I don't get it. Why is CCP always changing stuff around to make older characters more penalized. Is this your way of rewarding players who have stuck for years training for something that takes two years? No. Wait. You're listening to your marketing or sales guys who want to please younger players. Please look at the negative outcry this has caused. I think this has to be the stupidest change in CCP history.


Whine more please.

Older players get the best of everything tbh - new ships with hugh skill req = older players get them frist

Capitol ships with costing billions of isk = older players get them first

Pre-Nerf uber ships, whichever of the new toys is overpowered = older plays get to abuse nubs in them for months before they get nerfed.

The new players, have to train harder... oh wait they CANT train harder, they have to WAIT, then when they finally get to anything close to catching up, it all gets nerfed and the next vet-player-toy is released.




Older players get better stuff because we've been playing longer?

Unless I forget that was the whole ****ing idea.

KracKaTinny
Macabre Votum
Posted - 2007.10.27 15:03:00 - [893]
 

Originally by: Cargo Hustler
Originally by: Sir Coldfire
I don't get it. Why is CCP always changing stuff around to make older characters more penalized. Is this your way of rewarding players who have stuck for years training for something that takes two years? No. Wait. You're listening to your marketing or sales guys who want to please younger players. Please look at the negative outcry this has caused. I think this has to be the stupidest change in CCP history.


Whine more please.

Older players get the best of everything tbh - new ships with hugh skill req = older players get them frist

Capitol ships with costing billions of isk = older players get them first

Pre-Nerf uber ships, whichever of the new toys is overpowered = older plays get to abuse nubs in them for months before they get nerfed.

The new players, have to train harder... oh wait they CANT train harder, they have to WAIT, then when they finally get to anything close to catching up, it all gets nerfed and the next vet-player-toy is released.




here's a news flash for you mate..the reason older players get them first is because they have EARNED the right to get them. i laugh at your statement that newer players have to train harder and longer. New players now start with almost 1mil sp's...compare that to barely 150k sp's for the older generation of this game.

The griefing that you are talking about is just the way of the game...everyone's been through it...and the only way to beat it is with time, patience and training.

I am not a carrier pilot..but after reading this blog...im sorry...CCP i suggest you retrain 'business management V'. The loyal player base which i assume has been a guaranteed source of income is beginning to pull the pin..and not on just 1 acct...but id be saying on average at 3-4 at best. If you'd prefer to trade that with however many 14 day trials only to have 10% stick with it for 3 months...then go back to WoW...its your dime...but i would refuse to continue to hand over my hard earned $$ to a franchise that is not even in touch with its most valued customers.


Xilimyth Derlin
Federal Fleet System
Posted - 2007.10.27 15:16:00 - [894]
 

Edited by: Xilimyth Derlin on 27/10/2007 15:19:21
Originally by: KracKaTinny

here's a news flash for you mate..the reason older players get them first is because they have EARNED the right to get them. i laugh at your statement that newer players have to train harder and longer. New players now start with almost 1mil sp's...compare that to barely 150k sp's for the older generation of this game.

The griefing that you are talking about is just the way of the game...everyone's been through it...and the only way to beat it is with time, patience and training.




I gotta admit... KracKa has got a point. New players do have it VERY easy now. I just got a RL friend to join us and he's already assisting in Level 4s and Deadspace complexes after only half a month of skillwork. In the past, that would've taken far far longer. EDIT: And if a 'new' character (this is a new character, but I'm not an new player by ANY means.) really wants carriers... they can train em. I'm only 41 days (at time of this post) from launching one myself.

While I personally still think the doom and gloom coming from much of the carrier pilots about the new 'Specialization Adjustment' is abit over the top, it's only because of lack of information. I mean, you already do refit a carrier for different roles, so to me, these new specialized modules get me curious. Is one like a new 'fighter damage mod'? Is one a maneuverability and speed mod? How can I mix these in with the triage and drone command units? There's just not enough info for me to hate OR love this yet.

But this thing regarding ships in the maintenance bay not being allowed to carry cargo perplexes me. I know it's to prevent carriers from loading up on full haulers and invalidating the freighters / jump freighters, but surely there's another way. Maybe to artificially make haulers 'larger' so they take up more room or something.

As it stands now, I was training for a logistics carrier fitted with the Triage Module. My role was going to be providing fleet support and carrying replacement ships for non-capital pilots who lost their's in combat. However with this change in a fleet battle because their ships would have no ammo to get back into the fight with.

It'd be like saying to a pilot that just launched from a US aircraft carrier "Yea, we know you're anxious to get into combat, but we couldn't arm you... oh wait standby.... we're dropping some AIM-9s into the ocean. Pick em up before you head to your target."

I mean, I don't get it O_o

NEvara
Caldari
STK Scientific
Black-Out
Posted - 2007.10.27 15:20:00 - [895]
 

excuse me but WTF is ccp thinking carrier and MS are supposed to be ships to redeploy forces on the spot now how are we supposed to be able to do that? i meean setting up a pos in enemy front lines is a loose case. thats about it i rest my case i mean does it makes sence that MS were made for redeploying fleets on the spot but when a gang of 200 people is riding a MS or a 25 peeps a carrier they cant do squat sorry but i'm abit concerned where all this is moving?

well thanks NEvara

Maximillian Tasashi
Posted - 2007.10.27 15:20:00 - [896]
 

When I first started playing Eve I was very excited about eventually piloting a Carrier. With it HUGE requirements to be able to EFFECTIVELY use it, I have been plugging away at the skill list for over 6 months now, with another 6 months to go. So now in CCP need to NERF everything in site they have decided that Carriers need to be screwed with. Carriers should be tough and have a good amount of firepower. With the price of ship and fighters, why should I have to have another player around to allow me to use the full potential of my ship. I dont see any other ship needed others around to be able to operate at max efficiency.

I believe that if CCP goes ahead with this, to appease those that havent put the HUGE amount of time and ISK into training Carriers, they will find a good amount of players leaving...

Afterall I am a PAYING customer and if CCP starts to forget this perhaps we should all go somewhere that wont forget that!!!

Sir HyperChrist
Amarr
Persnickety Pilots
Posted - 2007.10.27 15:27:00 - [897]
 

Edited by: Sir HyperChrist on 27/10/2007 15:37:14
Edited by: Sir HyperChrist on 27/10/2007 15:34:17
I haven't read the entire thread (30 pages lol) but I heard about the proposed, and later retracted haulign nerf on carriers.

I have been using a carrier for just this task in a long while and so of course I feel hurt by not having that option for a carrier anymore. But still I agree with the general feel of the carrier as being too versatile and I like the proposed ideas about changing the carrier on a per-mission basis.

I expect new "Capital ship specilisation" modules to be released etc. why not rip the corp hangar, drone and ship maintenance bay from a carrier and add the following modules to that list:

-500k m3 maintenance bay
-80k drone bay
-100k transportation bay
-20k m3 corporate hangar bay

Giving a carrier then 2 or 3 "bay slots" would carriers to fit for the occasion. Further the hauling task of a carrier would still be possible, but at the cost of drones or maintenance bay.

The large-volume haulers will then be:
-Freighter: up to 1000k m3 hauling space, only warp capability
-T2 Jumpfreighter: 300-500k m3? mom-range jump capability
-Hauling Carrier: 100-200k m3 carrier range jump capability.

Each ship it's own role, and carrier cannot really fight when in hauling mode, just like a freighter.

Just my two cents.

<fixed a typo in a number>

sinqlaison
Amarr
Capital Builders Inc.
Posted - 2007.10.27 15:31:00 - [898]
 

Edited by: sinqlaison on 27/10/2007 20:17:43

*** UNEXPECTED DEV-BLOG FALL-OUT: JITA 4-4 MINERAL PRICES COLLAPSING ***

As you might want to observe for yourslef you can see that Jita mineral prices (iso, mega, mex, nocx, pyerite, trit, zyd) are collapsing. They are down 5-10% compared to one week ago. I forecast further steep decline soon.

Why? Simple, I stopped buying.

I run a gigantic mothership / titan capital component production business in Theforge area. I produce one mothership every 3 days, plus 24 freighter/carrier/dread BPOs running full steam. See thread: motherships.

If I take the newly appointed Eve-economist blog I estimate that my business is responsible for almost 2% of all Eve's mineral purchases. Given that I do all these in Jita I probably represent 10-20% of all Jita purchases. Other mothership producers are probably following suit. With these purchases gone prices are going down steep. After Jita, the rest of Eve will follow.

Why did I stop buying? Simple - I stopped selling. As the nerf uncertainty means that all mothership & carrier sales have ceased overnight. For me this is unhelpful (570 bln ISK of assets idling), but I will survive. The rich always do.

For Eve's 10,000's miners this means bad news. I also sympathise with my customers - Eve's 1,000's owners of carriers and motherships.

I hope the dev's realize that a rookie-dev posting an idea can have very serious consequences, not only in the deep emotions felt by many PvP'rs (as evidenced by the 10,000+ postings), but now even in actual deep impact on game play of Eve's 10,000's miners.

I am laughing my head off, if prices have come down 20-30% I will start buying again. If the nerf threat is over I will make 10's of billions on this.


Xilimyth Derlin
Federal Fleet System
Posted - 2007.10.27 15:33:00 - [899]
 

Edited by: Xilimyth Derlin on 27/10/2007 15:47:06
Originally by: Maximillian Tasashi

I believe that if CCP goes ahead with this, to appease those that havent put the HUGE amount of time and ISK into training Carriers, they will find a good amount of players leaving...


This is why I still hope if they do make an Extreme change like this they allow those pilots a 'respec'. While it's against the nature of EVE in itself, this change is more severe then some of the previous ones.

EDIT:
Originally by: sinqlaison

To provide alternative forms of excitement of all those hurt I would very much like to provide substantial bounty hunts (billions) . Does somebody have a suggestions for some 'mains' that were behind this trail of thought that led CCP to come with these ill-feated ideas?



I still don't think this was ever brought up by a player. I don't remember any posts other then the 'nerf motherships in lowsec' stuff. This may just all be observational.

Deviana Sevidon
Gallente
Panta-Rhei
Butterfly Effect Alliance
Posted - 2007.10.27 16:02:00 - [900]
 

Edited by: Deviana Sevidon on 27/10/2007 16:02:06
Maybe it would help as someone else suggested, to remove the ability to use standard Drones from the Carrier, so they can only launch Fighters.

But if this is done then some rebalancing of Fighters would be needed. Lowering their building costs and introduce new types of fighters for different purposes.

- Normal Fighters can be assigned to defending the Carrier, they get a bonus when attacking other Fighters to their tracking and chance to hit, but not against pod-controlled (player) ships.

- Interceptor Fighter. The main use for this Fighter is defending the carrier, and does it extremely well against other Fighters and is also useful against other small craft, but does not follow a pod controlled ship into warp and their damage against larger ships is low.

- Bomber. Fires powerful Fighter-Bombs. The blast of a few of these can cripple Battleships, but they are useless against any small ships and cannot defend themselves against other Fighters. Bombers also need to return to carrier after one or two attacks, to rearm and refuel.


Pages: first : previous : ... 26 27 28 29 [30] 31 32 33 34 ... : 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