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 : ... 27 28 29 30 [31] 32 33 34 35 ... : last (38)

Author Topic

oDDiTy V2
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2007.10.27 16:02:00 - [901]
 

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.




Hi, all of us older players were new players once too (omg, no way!). Do you think we all just magically got our skills and didn't have to train for them? Do you think you've got it bad cuz you can easily make isk as a noob these days and you have advanced learning skills, cheap implants, etc available to you right off the bat?

Boohoo.

Gridwalker
Amarr
Divine Power.
KIA Alliance
Posted - 2007.10.27 16:08:00 - [902]
 

Originally by: shupaco yaloo
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


You know, this "hello kitty" statement wasn't clever the first time I heard it, and it certainly isn't clever now after the 100th time. Did you actually register a new forum alt just so you could spout that single inane joke?

Worse, the joke is neither appropriate nor accurate. The carrier pilots are the ones who are hardcore; the people who are glad they are getting nerfed are the ones who want EVE to be easier.

-Grid

Joe Smiles
do you
-Mostly Harmless-
Posted - 2007.10.27 16:09:00 - [903]
 

How about this for a change...

Make carriers have 5 fighters max ( for defense )... then add the ability to carry up to 20 POD pilots n there ships. Isn't this what a true carrier's role is? When a carrier goes thru a cyno it brings 20 ships n pod pilots with it. It allows them to carry out there missions with support like intended... the cargo bay is for ammo for it's pilots. It can make repairs like intended. A mobile combat base if you will.

Nerf the carrier like this. Make it's mods benefit only pod pilots who dock.

Motherships n titans follow the same trend... but larger scales. Maybe Motherships can support carriers.

---

Beyond a Battleship there really should not be a better "all out solo combat ship".

Capital ships are for fleet combat.

Capital ships pilots should expect the requirement to have fleet support to survive.

---

Just my two cents.

-Joe Smiles








Ztrain
Versatech Co.
Blade.
Posted - 2007.10.27 16:14:00 - [904]
 

Okay the not putting cargo in a ship in a carriers maintenance bay has to be a bug on Singularity. I can't believe the dev's are truly that stupid. I mean if that's deliberate it's getting to the point of I wonder how they have the IQ to actually get out of bed in the morning.

Z

The Ratfink
Posted - 2007.10.27 16:42:00 - [905]
 

Edited by: The Ratfink on 27/10/2007 16:43:07

ElDiabloRojo
Caldari
Colossus Technologies
P R I M E
Posted - 2007.10.27 17:20:00 - [906]
 

isnt it kind of obvious what needs to be done?

add a module like the triage module that allows for fighters to be launched and boosts drone capacity up 1 per carrier level. give it the usual debuffs reduces speed to 0 and long duration time and maybe some fuel reqs.. explain it away by saying fighters are bigger then drones and thus need more power but because they are smaller then frigates they cant use conventional "reactors" that dont require refueling. so they need some help from the carrier itself, also the obvious ammo issues.

that way when the module is offline people can use 5 drones of any type except fighters and they can move around.

also reduce the carriers effectivnes with shield etc. transfers and put them onto the triage module. so without being in triage mode the ship is a heavily tanked dominix with a jump drive.

then it turns on 1 of its 2 modules and becomes either a carrier that launches 6 - 15 fighters that it can control or delegate. it cant launch normal drones in this mode tho. or it turns on the trigae module and cant launch drones either, but tanks better and is a very effective logistics ship.

it will be a pain and all but its a reasonable solution and similar to real life carriers. american carriers have to turn into the wind and achieve a decent speed to launch fighters where as other carriers, like those of the royal navy, used ramps at the end of the flight deck which meant they could launch planes easier but with less efficiency.

finnaly in real life why do carrier wander around with support? given that some of the american carriers space is used for fuel for its none nuclear support craft they are technically slowing the carrier down and requiring it to have logistics ships follow behind. so why have them? because a carrier is in fact pethetic in a ship to ship fight. i mean where are its guns? oh yeah they're on the planes. so carriers in real life are weak vs submarines, and if their flight deck becomes damaged well then they're buggered arn't they. so why not explore ways to make carriers "easier" to kill and thus forcing them to travel with an escort. for instant making a capital hunter frigate. the carrier can keep alive a destroyer very easily in both triage mode and not in triage mode. so if the capital hunter is hard to kill with fighters then the carrier either has to quickly drop out of 1 of its 2 "modes" (Triage or Fighters) and deploy smaller drones to take out this threat. OR it ususes its logistics abilities to keep alive its support ships (IE an ESCOURT DESTROYER (new tech 2 ship ;)) who specialties are cyno fields and taking out capital hunters.

Blitter
Caldari
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.10.27 18:34:00 - [907]
 

Where did this idea come from? Is it something that's been on the table for a while? To the community it seems like new game devs have suddenly been hired / appeared in the public eye. So far, it seems like you'd get better design goals out of monkeys with typewriters. Both dev blogs show a fundamental disconnect with how the game is played.

Carriers aren't exactly solo pwnmobiles. They die horribly solo. Motherships are to a certain extent, but put themselves at risk to do so in 0.0. Lowsec they probably need a fix.

If you're trying to fix a "carrier blob" of 50+ carriers not needing support, three simple fixes will do it:

1. Stacking nerf remote reps. Or simply make carriers immune to remote reps. Currently the spider tank of a carrier blob is unkillable.
2. remove auto aggress for drones. The lag advantage of drone ships needs to be reduced or eliminated.
3. Make improvements to lag caused by drone ships. It's an open secret that putting 2,000 drones in your bay increases load time vastly, yet it's never been fixed.

As it stands, all you're doing is making the game even more painful to play for logistics guys while really ****ing those 10,000 carrier pilots off.

Nuhsshun Takamoto
Gallente
Total Mayhem.
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2007.10.27 19:07:00 - [908]
 

give the carriers and motherships their fighters man, theres so many other things to **** and toy with on the ships then their primary role... which is no guns lots of fighters.

i would love to see auto agro taken off. doesnt change anything cept game physics, and also avoids those "lag you so hard your next frame is you in a pod" tactics implemented on abusing carriers/motherships in that fashion

jump freighters will take alot of carriers down from transport duty

why are they so tough? price tag is power rights.

carrier being repped to unkillable status? kill the repper ships or bring bigger blob?
how bout bring better ewar?

Molachai
Gallente
Posted - 2007.10.27 21:22:00 - [909]
 

My vote:

No to the proposed changes to carriers/moms. I hate the idea of limiting the # of drones or fighters I can control.

BIRDofPREY
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2007.10.27 21:55:00 - [910]
 

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.




When I started playing, my Toon had 15k of sp's.... New players can have as much a 1.2 million...

Am I supposed to believe that I am now a second class citizen of EVE for sticking with the game for 4 years and fight with a relatively new player. That an already gimp'd ship needs to be further nerfed cause some loSec Pirate is making life hard on you?

I'm beginning to feel that CCP thinks I going to stick around after this nerf, cause I have been with it this long. I wouldn't bet that. I've already been eyeing a new game coming out in 2008 with some relish.




BIRDofPREY
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2007.10.27 21:58:00 - [911]
 

Originally by: Blitter
Where did this idea come from? Is it something that's been on the table for a while? To the community it seems like new game devs have suddenly been hired / appeared in the public eye. So far, it seems like you'd get better design goals out of monkeys with typewriters. Both dev blogs show a fundamental disconnect with how the game is played.

Carriers aren't exactly solo pwnmobiles. They die horribly solo. Motherships are to a certain extent, but put themselves at risk to do so in 0.0. Lowsec they probably need a fix.

If you're trying to fix a "carrier blob" of 50+ carriers not needing support, three simple fixes will do it:

1. Stacking nerf remote reps. Or simply make carriers immune to remote reps. Currently the spider tank of a carrier blob is unkillable.
2. remove auto aggress for drones. The lag advantage of drone ships needs to be reduced or eliminated.
3. Make improvements to lag caused by drone ships. It's an open secret that putting 2,000 drones in your bay increases load time vastly, yet it's never been fixed.

As it stands, all you're doing is making the game even more painful to play for logistics guys while really ****ing those 10,000 carrier pilots off.



I agree with a Goon??

I feel....

GOOOODCool

Going somewhere and contemplating my belief system


Syberbolt8
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2007.10.27 22:42:00 - [912]
 

Originally by: CCP Zulupark
Originally by: Fedaykin

And this one goes to CCP

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


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

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


I have to say while I wasn't very happy with the nerf that was first put up. I think Im going to like this Idea, though I wanted to ask, Are we still going to be able to put ship into the SMB with cargo in them?, and if so can we please make it so in exchange for more cargo hold we lose the SMB, I dont like the idea of putting hualers into the SMB if I could instead just fill the ships extra large cargo hold with the fuel i need. However saying that I feel ships should be able to have there ammo in them along with other consumables needed for a ship to be pulled out and used.

Razor Jaxx
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2007.10.27 22:56:00 - [913]
 

Originally by: Gridwalker
The carrier pilots are the ones who are hardcore


Laughing

BIRDofPREY
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2007.10.27 23:18:00 - [914]
 

Edited by: BIRDofPREY on 27/10/2007 23:22:44
So I did a little math. Call it an occupational hazzard.

I did a satistical sampling of the various threads and distilled them down to the following types of post.

Approve
Disapprove
Neutral

Approve and Disapprove are self descriptive. Neutral are post that ask various questions or pose additional questions concerning implimentation of the changes. Neutral also includes flames and baiting that are always prevalent in such a heated discussion.

Approve = 15.25%

This includes any post that seemed to lean in that direction.

Disapprove = 66.25%

As a side note. In analysing the post, it was interesting to see how the word flowed through the corps and alliances about the changes and groups of post suddenly appeared from their members. MC seemed to get the message first and came out in force. Also note that this was a uniting topic across all the alliances. BoB / Goon / IAC etc/ all came out in force for this one.

Neutral = 18.5%

As said before, Neutral post were more or less questions posed about how the changes would be implemented or flame bait.

If neutrals were to be disregarded and a simple Yes / No was taken, Then...

Approve = 19.7%
Disapprove = 80.3%


Approval post didn't seem to address the employment of carriers either way. Some did, but overall the tone was more subdued.

Disapproval post were adament that this was a game killer. A majority of the post were from those with experience with carriers; some were from those who want to be in a carrier. The vast majority of Carrier Pilots disagree with the Dev's assertion that the carrier is the Swiss Army Knife of EVE.

Leigh Goslin
Posted - 2007.10.28 00:40:00 - [915]
 

Originally by: BIRDofPREY
Edited by: BIRDofPREY on 27/10/2007 23:22:44

Approve = 19.7%
Disapprove = 80.3%

Disapproval post were adament that this was a game killer. A majority of the post were from those with experience with carriers; some were from those who want to be in a carrier. The vast majority of Carrier Pilots disagree with the Dev's assertion that the carrier is the Swiss Army Knife of EVE.


amen there u have it...u implement this your going against your player base...your main source of income...smart idea? i think not then again who sed it had to be smart. but your reputation hangs in the balance.

to all you that say we are whiners for want this nerf to not be implemented.. 1 do you fly a carrier? odds are: no 2 do u have a clue about what you are talkin about? : no do the tables way in your favour?: no

Leave carriers and Ms the way they are they are fine. and yes i cant spell big deal.

LG

Oz Borne
Naughty 40
Posted - 2007.10.28 01:05:00 - [916]
 

I just cant help thinking the reasons we're being given are a load of ****, and that the alterior motives are based around new player retention, trying to compensation for hardware limitations or something more sinister.

Druadan
Syrus Speculations
Posted - 2007.10.28 01:32:00 - [917]
 

Edited by: Druadan on 28/10/2007 01:31:43
Some mod called Jacques removed my damn Carriers Motherships '07 sig. What the **** is this ****?

Goca
KAOS.
Imperial Republic Of the North
Posted - 2007.10.28 01:44:00 - [918]
 

Originally by: Druadan
Edited by: Druadan on 28/10/2007 01:31:43
Some mod called Jacques removed my damn Carriers Motherships '07 sig. What the **** is this ****?


you are surprised?
they can't have people saying they have no clue what they are doing in their own game, especially when they haven't the slightest clue, don'cha know?

Hysidee
Warped Mining
Posted - 2007.10.28 02:05:00 - [919]
 

Originally by: Goca
Originally by: Druadan
Edited by: Druadan on 28/10/2007 01:31:43
Some mod called Jacques removed my damn Carriers Motherships '07 sig. What the **** is this ****?


you are surprised?
they can't have people saying they have no clue what they are doing in their own game, especially when they haven't the slightest clue, don'cha know?


QFT

Hyron
Corp 1 Allstars
The Requiem
Posted - 2007.10.28 02:36:00 - [920]
 

Originally by: Moon Kitten
I agree, carriers and motherships need some changes in order to bring them inline with other ships.



What the **** are you on about?


Why the **** should a 30b mothership be in line with a 100m battleship?

I know your goonfleet and everything but still...

infinityshok
ZYNC
Posted - 2007.10.28 04:41:00 - [921]
 

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.


After reading a few of these carrier rapage threads it seems a more appropriate analogy would be finding a big happy bear eating a nice juicy honeycomb then kicking him in his left testicle, tasering him is right testicle, then once he is doubled over in agony, pi$$ing in his eye followed by the performance of unnatural acts on his southermost orifice which are against the laws of nature and several articles in the Geneva Convention after which sending him a nice perfumed memo appologizing for the inconvenience and requesting he have a lovely day.

Icome4u
Caldari
28 Meows Later
Infinitas Consortium
Posted - 2007.10.28 08:10:00 - [922]
 

Edited by: Icome4u on 28/10/2007 08:11:06
YARRR IBTL

EPIC FAIL!

Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.

Lady Beauvoir
Slutty Witches
Posted - 2007.10.28 09:29:00 - [923]
 

Edited by: Lady Beauvoir on 28/10/2007 09:32:17
Edited by: Lady Beauvoir on 28/10/2007 09:30:08
Edited by: Lady Beauvoir on 28/10/2007 09:29:10
CCP, I humbly request:

could you please write a multipart blog on how you envision players to build empires in 0.0? I great detail.

I'm asking because I don't seem to have any idea on what I should do. Last february I started to train for a carrier and I just got into it. I was under impression that I was getting into a ship that could be useful for

a) helping with the logistics (doing them is still difficult with a carrier, I noticed when I spent a whole evening moving stuff for my corpmate)

b) having a ship to help with POS sieges and

c) getting into a ship that's large and expensive enough that it's capable of turning the tide of the small gang battle when I warp into the battle.

Now, with the carrier logistics capability gone: you can't scoop posses into them anymore [container within a container] nor can you haul stuff with them [no cargo in ships in the ship maint. bay] AND since the volume of many modules is going up [capital modules -> 4000m^3, can only fit two in the corp hangar bay, which means very little fuel], I can no longer even move my own modules with the carriers so I could fit for the task I'm required to do.

Is this intentional? I'm asking for a detailed blog, because:

- I'd love to know how to train my characters so they'd be effective once the training ends, not when I start it.
- I would understand your goals and motivations and try to organize my activity accordingly.

What I'd love to see in the blog is:

- How are we supposed to maintain the POS network? What ships should be used to run the logistics? What kind of things should a corp be ready for when they setup a POS in 0.0? How many man hours should fueling POSs require? Are NPC 0.0 regions supposed to be different from others and if so, in what way (for example, you can't use jump bridges there since you can't get sovereingnty). How many systems/regions/constellations/POSs should an alliance be capable of claiming?

- How do you see system sieges to be organized? How is one side supposed to assault the enemy? How would you like the cyno jammers to be taken out and how feasible are the solutions? How should we do offensive logistics (setting up posses, delivering fuel and gear to ships in the field and such)?

- What should we do with 0.0 infrastructure? Are we supposed to be importing ice and minerals from empire or mine it in 0.0? What is the role of the Rorqual: help with the mining operations in 0.0 or compress minerals in lowsec for 0.0 transportation? What should whe export from 0.0 to empire?

- How do you believe gangs of fleets should be organized? What kind of gang structure would you see as optimal? Coherent, single type of ship -gangs or balanced, multipurpose fleets? How would you have us take lag into consideration? What, in your opinion, would be the proper size of a fleet fight - 100 pilots per side or 500 pilots per side? What is your vision in warfare: should quantity always triupmh over quality?

There are many other questions as well but I'd love to see a quarterly "state of eve" -newsletter in which you would address the idea and vision behind the EVE and how we, the players, have developed workarounds and streamlined the process - and especially what kind of things are you going to look at in the next quarter. This is because both the carrier nerfs were never found in any dev blog or in testing / in development -pages. One was announced two days before the feature freeze on Rev 3 and the other one sneaked into SISI with no details whatsoever.

What I'm hoping for is guidance, discussion on projects with huge impacts on gameplay and most of all, time to adapt to upcoming changes in gameplay. Time is a luxury and I'm saddend to see that you, CCP, seem to give us very little of it in order to adapt.

Kropotkin
Gallente
Center for Advanced Studies
Posted - 2007.10.28 09:57:00 - [924]
 

Originally by: OzDeaDMeaT
...
Oh and PS. Carriers and Motherships are very easily killed by small fleets of ships. You dont want to end up having 4 of 5 mates babysitting you as ur flying ur ship between lowsec stations. A carrier is a HUGE investment in skill time and ISK, please treat any changes to this ship accordingly. ...

Bzzzt!

This is exactly wrong!

A carrier should always need an escort.

Remember, for example, the fate of the WW2 Japanese supercarrier Shinano -- torpedoed and sunk while moving from one Japanese port to another by a lone American submarine, even with an escort.

Hysidee
Warped Mining
Posted - 2007.10.28 10:22:00 - [925]
 

In theory i think i can see what they're trying to do, iirc they're planning to make SMA's bigger, to promote carriers taking more spare ships to engagements, but this could have been used to move more haulers, hence the change.

In theory it would mean less carriers would be needed in a gang to carry replacement ships, but in reality it means more people trying to access your sma/corp hanger to get ship/modules/ammo then trying to refit resulting in a lag fest.

Piccalo
SUNDERING
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2007.10.28 11:20:00 - [926]
 

Originally by: Kropotkin
Originally by: OzDeaDMeaT
...
Oh and PS. Carriers and Motherships are very easily killed by small fleets of ships. You dont want to end up having 4 of 5 mates babysitting you as ur flying ur ship between lowsec stations. A carrier is a HUGE investment in skill time and ISK, please treat any changes to this ship accordingly. ...

Bzzzt!

This is exactly wrong!

A carrier should always need an escort.

Remember, for example, the fate of the WW2 Japanese supercarrier Shinano -- torpedoed and sunk while moving from one Japanese port to another by a lone American submarine, even with an escort.


Dude that has no relevance with EVE. First of all that Japanese super carrier would of had to have some sort of shield on it, not just a metal haul that can be blown to bits with one torp. On top of that it floats on water you, you put a hole on the bottom it sinks. Now the carrier we are talking about wont sink, it will blow up tho.

Bassai Sho
Sacred Templars
RED.OverLord
Posted - 2007.10.28 11:38:00 - [927]
 

Ok, first on the recent nerfs in general, its very apparent that CCP dont actively play the game and rely on feed back alone, change that, get a trial account and start playing the game before you ruin it! Evil or Very Mad
Secondly, you cant keep nerfing all the ships so bad, you will stop people for going and specialising in specific ships, which will in my opinion cause alot of generalising and again ruin it! The idea should be to have people specialise in a class and get there skills maxed out, then the can cross train to a second class etc. If you nerf drone boats, they wont max out there drones, if you nerf EW people wont max out there EW and to be honest that will suck.
Carriers/mothership nerf, at the moment a carrier is one of the great ships in the game, IT IS A CAPITAL DRONE BOAT so it should be able to kill frigs crusiers BC and up, thats there purpose. Alot of people have spent months on getting Carrier 5, ADI 5 and Fighters 5 so that the can use it to its full potential, this is months and months of training then add the jump skills in and your going into years! A carrier is very easy to take down, the reason people sit at a POS and assign fighters is because they cant do that in triage mode as they cant operate drones. If you take away a carriers fighters it is helpless, if you only give it 5 drones a BS or command ship can do more DPS.
If you make it so that they have to assign drones to get them all out, what will happen with the carrier pilots skills (carrier, Fighter drone) bonuses? at the moment you loss them, if you can only use 5 drones your self and the 10+drones you have cant get a fighter bonus who will bother training fighters level 5? or spend two months training carrier level 5 other than those who have spent all them daunting hours watching as eve mons count down clock slow ticks away?
I havent done carrier 5 yet, and i admire those who have endured the ordeal but i also feel sorry for them if this nerf comes in there training will be invain and they will be very angry. And dont say it wont be invain as the reason that they trained for it will be gone!

CCP DONT NERF CARRIERS! You talk like there invicible in that Post and there far from it! They are the most killed capital ship in the game, you take there drones away and they will start dropping like stones!

As for the Ewar nerf i read about... im sorry i specialised in recons it will all prove pointless if damps get nerfed Sad

URG thrash
Posted - 2007.10.28 12:40:00 - [928]
 

i only have 1 statement to these changes:

WTS SLightly Used Archon..............

MrMunro
Caldari
PILGRIMS
Black Star Alliance
Posted - 2007.10.28 12:57:00 - [929]
 

Originally by: Hysidee
In theory i think i can see what they're trying to do, iirc they're planning to make SMA's bigger, to promote carriers taking more spare ships to engagements, but this could have been used to move more haulers, hence the change.

In theory it would mean less carriers would be needed in a gang to carry replacement ships, but in reality it means more people trying to access your sma/corp hanger to get ship/modules/ammo then trying to refit resulting in a lag fest.


In EvE terms, the submarine is an exploit, a cov ops capable of wielding a capital ship-killing weapon. But anyway.
Anyone who flies a carrier solo knows the risk of dying is great. One single well fitted interdictor can keep you from getting out unless you fit your carrier to tackle. So you see, they are not pwn-machines, like any ships, they require a balanced setup to make them good for what you want to use them for. Yes they have more hp than a BS, and more drone space etc. etc. but hell, a Raven costs 90mil, a Chimera 900mil, can I have some extra of everything for that?

I'm all for balancing ships in their respective classes, but keep in mind what they are designed to do. The carriers are designed to field fighters, small crafts much like frigates, who act like drones under the command of the pilot. A carrier is specialized in doing so, so it should have fighter bonuses. The carrier is also designed as a remote cap/armor/shield repping boat. Doing this efficiently already costs you a lot of your drone wielding capabilities, but again, it's a specialisation, so it should be able to do good with this.

What is not the designed function of a carrier? To move goods from A to B, it's a non-intended effect caused by the ship maintanance array. Taking the ability out to have ships in there carry stuff in their respective cargo bays is probably a good solution to fix that, ammo and mods can be carried in the corp hangars, but it will make replacing ships for players a longer process, plus it makes no sence, as long as the ship isn't repackaged, why shouldn't it be able to hold cargo? In the end, if it's done, I won't be glad with it, but I won't scream about it either, it's something I can live with.

What could you do about it's ability to kill small ships (although I don't fully agree with that statement) is quite simple, make the carrier unable to field more than 5 regular drones, only have it field multiple fighters. It'll cut into the repping abilities should a carrier choose to field repair drones, but that's nothing a change to the triage module couldn't fix.

Tread lightly CCP, you have already seen many ppl extremely ****ed off with these proposals. There are ways to doing this, but your proposals just make the carrier a extremely expensive battleship, or maybe even less than that...

Jiks
Caldari
Prophets of Doom
Posted - 2007.10.28 13:10:00 - [930]
 

Reposted from another thread in case the Devs are not reading the Game Development forum ^^. This is in reference to the change currently on Sisi which prevents anything being put inside a ship inside a carrier...
------------------------------

CCP,

Is it too much to ask for a simple statement whether you intend to prevent items being placed inside ships in carriers or not?

Thanks.

If this is implemented now it will,again, make fleet fights worse as we can't load ammo in the ships pre-fight and even worse destroy alliance logistics.

You are planning jump freighters that will gradually replace the current carrier logistics role but will not be available imediately or ever to the smaller alliances. Why there is need to break something that works with no workable alternative in sight I really cannot imagine.

Unfortunately imagining your motives is all I can do as, again, there has been no mention of this in a Dev blog.

Jiks


Pages: first : previous : ... 27 28 29 30 [31] 32 33 34 35 ... : 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