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 : ... 29 30 31 32 [33] 34 35 36 37 ... : last (38)

Author Topic

john roe
BearingPoint
Posted - 2007.10.29 17:15:00 - [961]
 

...in mother russia carriers nerf you.

but seriously...

dear ccp,

i believe you're missing the point.
what a carrier was and currently is capable of?
(talking about so called Real Life)

- carrier can carry many planes
- carrier can store lots of supplies
- carrier have decent firepower cause of his combat planes
- at carrier you can refuel, rep, re-arm... chill out
- carrier can sneak behind enemy lines and provide a surprising strike (famous US navy op, in April 1942,
when they managed to deliver dozens of B-25 and engage Tokyo :
http://www.steveambrose.net/woodshed/2006/04/18/18-april-1942-western-pacific/
- carrier can crash solo ships, small formations even
- carrier is nothing without a decent support fleet
during fleet battles
- carrier is the flag ship in a fleet. it's THE SHIP.
the other ships are to protect him, to make sure
he can operate safetly on hostiles waters.
- carrier does 1001 more things i skipped here
cause it's your floating home
- carrier IS jake of all trades, sort of speak
because it was designed to be one

...and motherships in eve are something even better.
it's like t2 carrier. bigger, stronger, more powerful.
they are ment to cause havok, destruction and sow fear in enemies hearts... but still to be vulnerable when fighting solo.

guys, lets stop this whole nonsens with carriers nerf.
admit you were looking the wrong way to reduce lag
by nefing carriers ability (number of fighters, etc)
and now, when your reputation is at stake you're alooking for every possible excuse to keep on going with your ideas.
yes, carrier is THE SHIP, mates. he always ment to be a key player, but still he's nothing without support fleet,
just an another fancy wreck in space.

to be continued...



john roe
BearingPoint
Posted - 2007.10.29 17:26:00 - [962]
 

if you got to much of spare time and you realy wonna do something
about carriers... maybe you'll fix some bugs, hy?

short list :

- drone bay folders are not overwritten when loggin off
causing drones sorting being useless
- drones' AI is still an Artificial Ignorance
- drones stuck on each other
- oh, Sentries!!! ffs, why in the name of god they are launched outside scooping range? (1.8km+)
- hangars lag. and i do mean THE LAG when getting access to
100+ items. i dont remember corp hangars to cause such lag even when we got more like 200+
- etc, etc.

fix old bugs, dont cause new ones.

thank you for your time.

bulabuba
Gallente
Klima Galactic
Reckoning.
Posted - 2007.10.29 18:00:00 - [963]
 

Edited by: bulabuba on 29/10/2007 18:08:36
It's funny how this particular nerf is getting all the attention. I (not this character, I the person) spent a lot of time training e-war ships and support skills just to see them get nerfed into near uselessness, yet there was no CCP capitulation about those changes. Several in this thread mention how damps are effective against carriers, yet nobody mentions the draconian damp nerf that's coming. I guess high SP whining is just more effective than low SP whining.

These ships are fleet ships. Not solo ships, and not small gang ships. They should have to fly with significant (fleet sized) support to be effective. Despite some of the crying in this thread, they have become in many cases the "I win" button in small gang engagements and that shouldn't be the case.

I personally think the original idea made more sense than the latest one which is vastly more complex and risky to implement without somehow gimping the carrier at what it's supposed to do.

That said, I'm generally anti-nerf in general. Look, you have this time based training thing which is great, but people invest that time to aquire abilities in game. It just plain sucks to do so and then have those abilities "balanced" into beige blandness.

If you continue down this path, players will become less and less interested in training any skill that isn't either directly "gank" or "tank". Nobody will really specialize in any meaningful way, because any specialization that is effective will be whined about, and ultimately nerfed out of existance.

Don't. Do not. Please do not? Base your game design desisions on forum whining. It's been the death of most of the PvP oriented games that I've played over the years. Base it on hard facts from your own killmail system. If a ship type, or weapon type, or combination of the two is overpowered, it will become clear that that is the case from the K/D ratio of those flying that setup. Where you find such an "imbalance" for crissakes don't nerf it, rather, introduce effective counters to it.

DJTheBaron
Caldari
FinFleet
KenZoku
Posted - 2007.10.29 18:13:00 - [964]
 

With the drone bandwidth changes in mind, would it not be simpler for carriers to say control 5 of any drone, + drone links

or 5 fighters with a 200% bonus to their hp/dmg alongside new ecm/neut/damp/paint/shield/armor fighters? while either increading the drone bay or reducing fighter size so a ship could potentially have 20 fighters total

it means carriers must always use these expensive fighters vs their oponent, vunerable to lowsec sentry fire, easier to target and kill, less load on the server

while changing the corp hanger/cargo/ship maintance as nessary or as suggested have these features require a fitted module for expansion to "hauler" carrier

Surley by limiting the amount of drones in a bay, and the amount fielded in space, to enable players to tartet & destroy but also feature less lagg is the way to go, but by forcing carriers to perhaps use 5 new fighters for their power of 10 drones bonus therefore fielding expensive assets on the field instead of using the cheap drones

just a thought

Druadan
Syrus Speculations
Posted - 2007.10.29 19:43:00 - [965]
 

Originally by: bulabuba
It's funny how this particular nerf is getting all the attention. I (not this character, I the person) spent a lot of time training e-war ships and support skills just to see them get nerfed into near uselessness, yet there was no CCP capitulation about those changes. Several in this thread mention how damps are effective against carriers, yet nobody mentions the draconian damp nerf that's coming. I guess high SP whining is just more effective than low SP whining.

These ships are fleet ships. Not solo ships, and not small gang ships. They should have to fly with significant (fleet sized) support to be effective. Despite some of the crying in this thread, they have become in many cases the "I win" button in small gang engagements and that shouldn't be the case.

I personally think the original idea made more sense than the latest one which is vastly more complex and risky to implement without somehow gimping the carrier at what it's supposed to do.

That said, I'm generally anti-nerf in general. Look, you have this time based training thing which is great, but people invest that time to aquire abilities in game. It just plain sucks to do so and then have those abilities "balanced" into beige blandness.
Quite, but the damp nerf only means that the dampeners will be contextually settable to dampen range or targetting time. So in small gangs engagements the carrier will still be scan-res dampened to oblivion, and in fleets it will get dampened both ways. Unless there's a new addition to the damp nerf, I don't see how that mitigates the situation. So you can see that the carrier is far from this mythical ''I-win'' button. If you go up against a carrier without damps that is your fault, not the carrier's strength. One module type that can render the ship incapable in combat.

The reason the ECM nerf didn't get as many complaints is because everybody knew that ECM was overpowered. There was sufficient argument on both sides for the change to go forward. With this fighter nerf that got shelved, and the new ship maintenance bay nerf, the only cogent arguments are coming in against the nerf. The rest is alts and capital-haters.

Yosarian
Koshaku
Posted - 2007.10.29 22:21:00 - [966]
 

Edited by: Yosarian on 29/10/2007 22:21:28
The golden rules of nerfing (in any MMO):

1. If everyone wants one, it's overpowered

2. If you own it, it can never be overpowered

3. If you cant use it, you're certain it's overpowered (even though you've never used it)

4. 98% of posters skim read what the devs write, then moan based on not understanding it

5. 9 out of 10 nerfs turn out to be obviously a good idea in retrospect

6. The people who threaten to cancel their accounts are always the ones who never do

7. Players always think devs don't play their own game! Very strange

8. No MMO has ever solved the problem of endgame inflation. This leads to the inevitability of nerfs

9. The more balanced a game gets, the more glaring the remaining imbalances appear to be

10. People spend more time complaining about nerfs than they do getting over them afterwards


All these are true.

Saithe
Caldari
Posted - 2007.10.29 23:05:00 - [967]
 

Originally by: Yosarian
Edited by: Yosarian on 29/10/2007 22:21:28
The golden rules of nerfing (in any MMO):

1. If everyone wants one, it's overpowered

2. If you own it, it can never be overpowered

3. If you cant use it, you're certain it's overpowered (even though you've never used it)

4. 98% of posters skim read what the devs write, then moan based on not understanding it

5. 9 out of 10 nerfs turn out to be obviously a good idea in retrospect

6. The people who threaten to cancel their accounts are always the ones who never do

7. Players always think devs don't play their own game! Very strange

8. No MMO has ever solved the problem of endgame inflation. This leads to the inevitability of nerfs

9. The more balanced a game gets, the more glaring the remaining imbalances appear to be

10. People spend more time complaining about nerfs than they do getting over them afterwards


All these are true.


/signed

John McCreedy
Caldari
Eve Defence Force
Posted - 2007.10.29 23:29:00 - [968]
 

Edited by: John McCreedy on 29/10/2007 23:28:55
Originally by: bulabuba
Edited by: bulabuba on 29/10/2007 18:08:36
It's funny how this particular nerf is getting all the attention. I (not this character, I the person) spent a lot of time training e-war ships and support skills just to see them get nerfed into near uselessness, yet there was no CCP capitulation about those changes


The EW nerf was a nerfing of the ability of a non-EW ship to use EW as effectively as an EW ship. All EW ships got a buff to compensate. This nerf is totally different. They're basing it upon the assumping that a Carrier and Mothership is a Master of all trades. It's not. Neveer has been. It can fufil a variety of roles but none of them anywere near as good as dedicated ships within those roles. That's why there's so much anger.


bulabuba
Gallente
Klima Galactic
Reckoning.
Posted - 2007.10.29 23:57:00 - [969]
 

Originally by: Druadan

If you go up against a carrier without damps that is your fault, not the carrier's strength. One module type that can render the ship incapable in combat.


Well, yeah, if you go up against anything without the counter for it, it's your fault, whether that's carriers, nano-boats, e-war, or what-have-you, but a ship only has so many slots. This just argues that you should never field a gang of any size without damps, because if you do, it's your fault if that six man gang your up against lights a cyno and drops a carrier or two on your head. A carrier that, as of now, has way more HP than your small roaming gang can deal with effectively, and enough DPS between drone/fighers and smarties to make the fight pretty lopsided. Yes, in that scenario, it is an unqualified "I Win".

With the original plan, at least, as you killed off the support the carrier's DPS would drop too and he'd run the risk of getting caught out if he stayed in the fight too long. I don't know how this new suggestion will pan out. It could go any number of ways depending on how its implemented.

What I don't see in 100 pages plus of biatching is how the proposed change would make a carrier any less effective in it's role (repping and assigning fighers) in fleet fights, which is where it belongs. It really only effects its use solo and in small gangs, where it probably is overpowered.

That said, I say don't nerf it. Provide a counter to it. Maybe an e-war module that scrambles the link between the carrier and a fighter and makes the fighter go dead in the water, that way a carrier controlled fighter is vulnerable, but an assigned fighter not so much. Nerfs suck. Just say no to nerfs. When you find something that's overpowered in a particular context, just provide a counter.

Attack Dog
Caldari
Best Path Inc.
Posted - 2007.10.30 01:50:00 - [970]
 

In my exsperiance of 0.0 fighting is about 3 things, tacklers, ewar and dps. Any competent fc will have 2-3 tacklers, 2 ewar (usualy in the form of damps) and the rest hacs, bc's, etc. This style of fighting makes the carreir vunreable to any group of hostiles. It has been said before, the fact that a 1 week old player flying a T1 frig with T1 gear that costs less than 500k in isk can neutralise a ship that takes a year to skill for and over 2 bill in isk (first carrier + skills) i wrong. In this thread there are plenty of good suggestions ccp plz listen to us.

Druadan
Syrus Speculations
Posted - 2007.10.30 03:14:00 - [971]
 

Originally by: bulabuba
Originally by: Druadan

If you go up against a carrier without damps that is your fault, not the carrier's strength. One module type that can render the ship incapable in combat.


Well, yeah, if you go up against anything without the counter for it, it's your fault, whether that's carriers, nano-boats, e-war, or what-have-you, but a ship only has so many slots. This just argues that you should never field a gang of any size without damps, because if you do, it's your fault if that six man gang your up against lights a cyno and drops a carrier or two on your head. A carrier that, as of now, has way more HP than your small roaming gang can deal with effectively, and enough DPS between drone/fighers and smarties to make the fight pretty lopsided. Yes, in that scenario, it is an unqualified "I Win".


Okay firstly, every roaming gang should bring damps, even if carrier's aren't a threat. It's not about how many slots your ship has, it's about bringing an EWAR ship. If you go out without EWAR, then a gang with EWAR will beat you, unless they screw up using it.

Secondly, you don't seem to have any idea how easy it is to take a carrier down. Three gank BS and you've got a dual-rep carrier's tank beat. Pop the fighters first, naturally, while he's damped to all hell, and then just plug away at the carrier itself. It's frighteningly easy.

Infinion
Caldari
Awesome Corp
Posted - 2007.10.30 04:59:00 - [972]
 

Isn't releasing EW Frigates a huge disadvantage to carriers in itself? you would render them useless if these were taken into context with fleet battles against capitals.

Maud
Sub-Genius inc
Posted - 2007.10.30 08:14:00 - [973]
 

Considering a gang of 10 bs/cruisers can quite easily kill a solo carrier.
a carrier in a gang is a much nore difficult opponent which is how they are supposed to be used.

Carriers are susceptable to EW 1 lone arazu will effectively render it useless unless it resorts to triage mode but then its just a matter of time before it will be killed.

To use a carrier to its full potential takes almost a year in training so this nerf if implimented in its blunt fashion will effectively be a nerf of all of the veteran players. Wheras other nerfs have had minor effects on a players trained potential this is potentialy so huge as to finallydrive away a very large proportion of the dedicated player base.

Nb
Yes I do fly carriers but not all the time as they have too many major flaws to be used as a do all ship and generaly there is a cheaper and more eficient alternative in the form of a smaller ship.

Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2007.10.30 08:59:00 - [974]
 

rabble rabble rabble


Mothercare
Elite D.I.S Organisation
Posted - 2007.10.30 13:21:00 - [975]
 

Reading tons of player comments on how weak and poorly a carrier can fends it self it seams I am better of figthing in a Velator or Ibis.

Why on earth did all carrier pilots even spend all that time and isk into such ship if it is such a crappy, no-need-to-nerf, ship people try to make an impression it is? The only - rational - reason I can see why people react so strongly is becuase the carrier in fact is what the dev's say it is.

Or anyone here that would care in 100 page thread about nerfing the Velator?

Shigawahhhhh
Caldari
Metalworks
Majesta Empire
Posted - 2007.10.30 13:44:00 - [976]
 

Edited by: Shigawahhhhh on 30/10/2007 13:44:42
A few points to the person up here ^^
I can't speak for other carrier pilots but I trained for a carrier because I had the isk and wanted to try something new and I was caldari who have the misfortune of not being very good with drones and I found I quite liked them and was jealous of Gallante.
Also just because something doesn't need to be nerfed doesn't mean its not usefull.
I know other people who have trained for carriers to help there corp and who are basically as good as they ever want to be in a battleship (not me still got training time there hehe).

oh and nerf volators :P

Selk Cantor
Minmatar
Evolution
Band of Brothers
Posted - 2007.10.30 14:43:00 - [977]
 

Unacceptable nerf.

I am not a carrier pilot, but this is obviously a bad idea. Carriers are just the next step up from a battleship. You can dominate bs's, but bs's can equally dominate cruisers, cruiser dominate frigs, etc. Carriers are a jack of all trades, but they're only a master of hauling loot long distances in 0.0, mainly because there are no plausible alternatives. Transport ships just don't cut it for 0.0 work and freighters are far too defenseless for 0.0 work, so carriers just become the logical alternative.

It just seems like a major nerf to nobody's benefit, except maybe cruiser blobs.

Jaleera Kaisin
Amarr
Eve Defence Force
Insurgency
Posted - 2007.10.30 14:44:00 - [978]
 

Originally by: Mothercare
Reading tons of player comments on how weak and poorly a carrier can fends it self it seams I am better of figthing in a Velator or Ibis.

Why on earth did all carrier pilots even spend all that time and isk into such ship if it is such a crappy, no-need-to-nerf, ship people try to make an impression it is? The only - rational - reason I can see why people react so strongly is becuase the carrier in fact is what the dev's say it is.

Or anyone here that would care in 100 page thread about nerfing the Velator?


Personally I trained it because I had lost EVERYTHING I owned twice in 0.0 alliance warfare by having it locked in hostile stations.

With a carrier I can at least transport my fitted and rigged ships out without having to repackage tham and trust them to a vulnerable freighter. The carrier has reasonable longevity if you have support . . .and it can quickly transpport repplacemnet ships to teh froint line - locked and loaded and ready to roll for pilots who have lost theirs.

They are OK at transportation/defence/offence but you need support AND you need to refit to specialise in any one of thsoe functions.

However fly one solo and you are going to die.

Princess Jodi
Cutting Edge Incorporated
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2007.10.30 15:46:00 - [979]
 

CCP, if you don't want Carriers to be haulers give us something better to do the job.

You've delayed too long in giving us the Jump-Capable Freighter. That forced Carriers into the role because the job HAS to be done. Believe me, I don't want to log into Eve so I can drive a Delivery Truck. However, you've not provided us an acceptable alternative.

Once you provide a better alternative to Carrier hauling, people won't use Carriers to haul. Simple. Instead, you're taking away the ability to haul. This is the equlavilent of Pharoh demanding that we make Bricks without Straw.

I submit that the Devs should use the Sisi Dev-alliance setup, and make them fuel all the towers for a week. Make them buy the fuels in empire like the rest of us do. When the week is over, see how much OTHER play was done. My bet is that you'll have some very harrassed Devs and towers going offline.

Then in the second week, set up a Sisi alliance in space where we can attack it.

When that is done, and the Devs have to play the same game we play instead of magically spawning the fuels they need, then I think you can talk about the 'problems' with Carriers.

Druadan
Syrus Speculations
Posted - 2007.10.30 15:49:00 - [980]
 

Originally by: Mothercare
Reading tons of player comments on how weak and poorly a carrier can fends it self it seams I am better of figthing in a Velator or Ibis.

Why on earth did all carrier pilots even spend all that time and isk into such ship if it is such a crappy, no-need-to-nerf, ship people try to make an impression it is? The only - rational - reason I can see why people react so strongly is becuase the carrier in fact is what the dev's say it is.

Or anyone here that would care in 100 page thread about nerfing the Velator?
Because we weren't planning on using them as solopwnmobiles, as they're not suitable for that use. We trained them for fleet warfare and logistics (as in transport). Like any other ship, if we're attacked by another ship we can at least defend ourselves until our support arrives, or their support arrives. Of course, if a lone battleship attacks us, we can tank the damage, and kill it, so long as he doesn't do a great job of killing the fighters, and that's absolutely right. But the five fighters change would have made the situation ridiculous.

Either way, you've missed the fact that the five fighters change was cancelled. What we're ****ed about now is the fact that all the guys who trained carriers for logistics purposes are dead in the water as Ship Maintenance Bays are being made pointless, and jump freighters will be months away after introduction, with exorbitant pricetags. Meanwhile, the titan-wielding alliances just jump-bridges freighter-fleets about.

Yeah, that sounds fair, right?

dethdealer
Posted - 2007.10.30 17:52:00 - [981]
 

I dont know if this has been mentioned yet or not, but Im gonna throw the idea out anyway.

Why not just make fighters fitable? You could have a few hull types, interceptor, fighter, bomber, ewar, ect... and then add a bunch of special fighter modules for them. Then a pilot could choose to be really good at one thing, pretty good at a couple things, or OK at several things depending on how his fighters were loaded out and which ones they launched. It would also add an entirely new area of items for the market. Also, it would provide drones with something to drop that was actually worth looting.

Jita TradeAlt
Posted - 2007.10.30 19:59:00 - [982]
 

hey if you at least make the t2 freighters just have the same jump range, isotope cost, a reasonable price and hell, even the same cargo space as a carrier using haulers in ship maint bay if you have to, then sure it would be almost acceptable that I've wasted a few months of skilling up on something that I got for one reason alone, logistics. Since then I would at least have a viable alternative.

Right now I, and pretty much everyone else with a few towers in 0.0 apart from major aliances with titans, are just ****ed. It's such a kick in the nuts, seemingly with no thought behind it whatsoever.

Lonk T1m3
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2007.10.31 02:11:00 - [983]
 

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.


/signed

I think the real issue that the EBIL DEVS(/sarcasm off) are actually trying to tackle, is when you look at a lot of kills here of late, you will notice they are dominated by carriers in numbers that surpass the number of support in their fleet.

The problem really lies in how easy it is to get anything anymore. Those of you who seem real angry, think of when battleship "gangs" (no fleet back then) were a fear inspiring sight. Then came the age of the BS blob, and it turned into a common sight. Now remember when the carrier, yes a single carrier mind you, was a dreaded sight. Now go look at killboards, and you will see, it has evolved to the carrier blob. It evolved REAL FAST, and this is the problem. This problem has been generated by another issue in the game, one that a new employee is supposed to be helping with, but all we have seen, are charts. Give us something real to chew on......

TELL US HOW YOU ARE GOING TO FIX THE ECONOMY

Once you fix this, I think you will see everything fall back into place, and not everyone and his alt will be able to afford those LARGE shinys.

Oh yeah, stop listening to the NOOB BOOBS, and please make the isk worth something again. Bring back the cold dark dank world of EvE.

Varrak Blackheart
Polaris Project
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2007.10.31 04:10:00 - [984]
 

The Nimitz class aircraft carrier is the most powerful and versatile warship ever created by human beings. The mere presence of one near a country can influence their foreign and/or domestic policy. That said, a very few of Aérospatiale's block 3 exocet missiles will put one at the bottom of the Indian Ocean. They are very well protected by support ships, aircraft, submarines, satellites, etc.

To CCP's design group: You are woefully guilty of over engineering and thereby creating your own problems. In the non-computer world, advanatges don't get neutralized by tweaking a configuration file. This game is persistent. When you make drastic changes to something that your customers have worked hard to earn you screw with their suspension of disbelief and MORE importantly their entertainment. A customer's negative reaction to a such change is proportional to the time and effort they put in to achieving the reward you artificially diminished.

Let me offer a more general, real world strategy instead of creating a conflagration with programmer configuration tweaking ideas. As occurs in the real defense world, military advatage is always met with some countermeasure.

In this case, create a breakthrough technology that threatens the survivability of the carrier and is deployed from a cheaper battlecruiser or smaller platform. Also provide the carrier some prototype defensive countermeasure at some significant cost -- or better, provide the optimum countermeasure available from some support platform -- a battlecruiser or smaller vessel.

Drone Bay, Corporate Hanagar, Maintenance Bay--should have been modules in the first place to allow for customized specialization--your stated objective. Add three more slots and the three modules to start as a fix.

Problems with fighters? The real world military solution-- allow ships to fit heavy point defense that doesn't arbitrarily blast everything around them, but can automatically support/defend self or designated sister ships.

There is no reason why a container shouldn't fit in a ship's cargo hold while that ship is carried by something else. Why would any rational person design such a container or system in the real world? At the same time, why can that container hold more than it's own volume? Better solution is the expanded cargohold module or a packaging skill which has some trade prerequisites and gives a small bonus to capacity.

I don't suggest these as 'final' solutions, but as an example of a way to think, because it offers these benefits---

(1) Threats offer customers a challenge, a problem to solve, and a thrill - not a kick in the groin.

(2) Hey look-- new content!

(3) Demonstrate that your game universe's empires are responding to the growing threat of 'x' and are dynamically adapting by developing new technology -- instead of, 'the development team has tinkered with the configuration files again'.

It's late, I'm rambling, you get the idea.

Goca
KAOS.
Imperial Republic Of the North
Posted - 2007.10.31 07:06:00 - [985]
 

Originally by: Varrak Blackheart
The Nimitz class aircraft carrier is the most powerful and versatile warship ever created by human beings. The mere presence of one near a country can influence their foreign and/or domestic policy. That said, a very few of Aérospatiale's block 3 exocet missiles will put one at the bottom of the Indian Ocean. They are very well protected by support ships, aircraft, submarines, satellites, etc..



errrm, it would take more then a "very few", in fact a quite high number would be required to actually put a Nimitz to the bottom..


Devren
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2007.10.31 12:49:00 - [986]
 

Firstly, my apologies if this has been suggested before but I couldn't be frakked reading through the 33 prior pages of whines, occasionally separated by intelligent declarations. Ultimately CCP will modify carriers to fit in with the continued playability of the game AS A WHOLE... this issue is being addressed with regards to ALL SHIPS not just carriers. Calm down a little people and put forward some more intelligent options for CCP to mull over as emotional outbursts are just really annoying.

(yes, you can spank me later for implying alot of you are whiners! Twisted Evil)

One idea that I have had is, if you want carriers to be a true fleet ship then make it possible install multiple pod pilots into a single carrier/mothership. One pod pilot is the "command pilot", who navigates the ship, handles modules, can control his base bandwidth of drones (eg 5 fighters) and assigns an additional drones to be controlled by the other installed pilots (drone pilots).

These "drone pilots" will:
- have the standard HUD (showing the carrier's current shields/armor/hull) but with navigation disabled.
- be able to target up to their standard number of targets but these targets can only be for assignment of drones. This targeting is completely independent of the targeting for the "command pilot". Yes, this means that a carrier piloted by multiple pilots can target a large number of ships but hey, these babies are BIG!
- not require to have Carrier Piloting skills but only the necessary Drone skills required to control what drones are assigned to them.
- be able to eject from the carrier at any time they desire. If the carrier is destroyed whilst they are installed, they and their compatriots that were on-board will now have to make their own way out of the situation.

The advantages of this idea are:
- you can nerf the single player control of drones in a carrier/mothership whilst bringing in a need to co-operate with others. Being a "drone pilot" for extended periods of time is not what ppl are going to want to do, but if you are on a military operation or handling home defense, having a few "drone pilots" on-board allows you to field you entire complement of fighters.
- younger players (lower SP that is, as children should be seen but not heard unless they are working in the mines Cool) will be able to support major engagements by training up their drone skills and installing their clones into carriers. This also reduces the number of ships on field, as I personally think that why would I want to be controlling a complement of a carrier's drones remotely AND also worry about the skin of my own ship!!!
- in relative terms to other ships in the game, carriers and motherships are frikkin' huge beasts! I would have thought that sheer logistics of commanding one of these vessels would be incomparable to piloting a BS or smaller ship. Wouldn't you design a ship this big to allow you to delegate critical functions like fighter control to another installed pod pilot?

If this doesn't make any sense then i apologise again as I seriously need sleep! Let me know what you all think.

Sweet dreams ppl,

Devren

Maxim Powers
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.10.31 19:56:00 - [987]
 

Originally by: Mothercare
Reading tons of player comments on how weak and poorly a carrier can fends it self it seams I am better of figthing in a Velator or Ibis.


Maybe there's some middle ground between "solo pwnmobile", or whatever they called it, and "useless"?

Shall we invent the word "balanced" for it?

Anazeteo Euphoria
Euphoria Research
Posted - 2007.10.31 21:10:00 - [988]
 

I think the changes are positive. I like the idea in the second blog of still allowing all/full current functions, but with a choice of modules. One module setup boosts one function while imposing limits on other functions. That sounds fair to me.

Samurai XII
Posted - 2007.11.01 07:18:00 - [989]
 

Man i just can't find any bigger EPIC FAIL for a video game idea/suggestion/blog... can anyone?

LaughingughLaughingShockedLaughingRolling EyesLaughing

vostok
Minmatar
Shadow of xXDEATHXx
Posted - 2007.11.01 08:22:00 - [990]
 

Originally by: bulabuba
Originally by: Druadan

If you go up against a carrier without damps that is your fault, not the carrier's strength. One module type that can render the ship incapable in combat.


Well, yeah, if you go up against anything without the counter for it, it's your fault, whether that's carriers, nano-boats, e-war, or what-have-you, but a ship only has so many slots. This just argues that you should never field a gang of any size without damps, because if you do, it's your fault if that six man gang your up against lights a cyno and drops a carrier or two on your head. A carrier that, as of now, has way more HP than your small roaming gang can deal with effectively, and enough DPS between drone/fighers and smarties to make the fight pretty lopsided. Yes, in that scenario, it is an unqualified "I Win".

With the original plan, at least, as you killed off the support the carrier's DPS would drop too and he'd run the risk of getting caught out if he stayed in the fight too long. I don't know how this new suggestion will pan out. It could go any number of ways depending on how its implemented.

What I don't see in 100 pages plus of biatching is how the proposed change would make a carrier any less effective in it's role (repping and assigning fighers) in fleet fights, which is where it belongs. It really only effects its use solo and in small gangs, where it probably is overpowered.

That said, I say don't nerf it. Provide a counter to it. Maybe an e-war module that scrambles the link between the carrier and a fighter and makes the fighter go dead in the water, that way a carrier controlled fighter is vulnerable, but an assigned fighter not so much. Nerfs suck. Just say no to nerfs. When you find something that's overpowered in a particular context, just provide a counter.



ok, well...

a module that breaks the link between a carrier and fighters is, i dont mean to be nasty, but the worst idea i have seen so far (also, a lot of people would tell you something to this effect is already in game, most people just call it lag though and get on with it).

From what little i've read of the some 3000-4000 posts around the forums, a lot of people have a problem with giving several hundred mill of drones to people in fleets, who for all they know might go and crack them open like a bunch of eggs on a warp core stabbed smartbomb BS waiting to be covered in drones.

so overall the problem is this would basically be a module of the effect ''i shoot, you lose 200 mill and all your firepower'' not to mention carriers dont have enough drone space to replace a full rack of fighters.

also a 6 man gang who end up fighting a carrier, will likely have the choice to run, in which case all the carrier achieved is to save its gang having to fight, on the other hand, comparing 6 decent BS to the tank of a carrier... i mean i can tank around 3k dps in my carrier, 6 BS could blink through that, and assuming that the gang has some organisation (at this point i would expect most gangs to have damps unless they were gank fitted) i would expect it to be able to kill a few fighters, and remember, thats a lot of isk in drones, even if you have to run you can leave costing the carrier more

and finally, since when has pvp in eve been fair?! im still looking for the ''fair fight'' what normally happens for me in pvp is, i gank a few people then get ganked by some mob on the way back to empire :( lol


Pages: first : previous : ... 29 30 31 32 [33] 34 35 36 37 ... : 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