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

Author Topic

Keretech
Posted - 2007.11.01 11:20:00 - [991]
 

Ha hahah,

I think many people are missing main reason why this stupid nerf is even discussed here. Its old problem. Veteran players with enough isk and skills can fly carriers. I fly carrier over the year in 0.0 and everybody knows that solo carrier is pretty much useless against even small fleet of experienced players as of now, more nerfing of any kind makes it just item for sale, especially with planned capital haulers. T2 capitals were nerfed already once remember? And its not enough.
Main reason of this planned nerf has nothing to do with gameplay but with problem of time-based-skill system. CCP is trying to rip veteran players, steal their training time.
They want, hehe, even new whining players to be Jedi lol. Way to go !ugh

Gray Mare
Posted - 2007.11.01 21:06:00 - [992]
 

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. The community's response to potential changes to a favorite ship has been more fierce than we expected. However, that does not change the core idea behind the change to Carriers, that one ship should not be able to do everything and do so effectively without penalty.

We've listened to the feedback, discussed the proposed changes and have another proposed list of changes. We do not see a problem with a ship being a jack of all trades and as long as it is a master of none, but when the ship is a master of all trades, then it departs from the original design concept.

We hope the new proposed changes will be more palatable than the previous. To find out what those proposed changes are, please read Carriers, the Swiss Army Knife of EVE???


What are you at ccp smoking?
Are you people Psychotic or just ignorant?

Even if you people do not know what your doing stop making us pay for your mistakes.

If the carriers are truly the master of all, (I do not think they are) it is only because you have given us so few choices in cap ships.

How about instead of nerfing the carrier. You spend your time building some new cap ships,and each new ship will truly be the best in each of the areas you are so concerned with.


Estrago
Caldari
Raype Inc.
Posted - 2007.11.01 22:21:00 - [993]
 

With the Carrier nerf currently on Sisi where ships stored in carriers can't have anything in their cargo, you are going to cripple the logistics abilities of most 0.0 alliances in the near future. By taking away the carrier as a supply route, people will be forced to wait MONTHS with no reliable means of transporting items to and from empire. Even when jump freighters do become available, it's my understanding that they will be prohibitively expensive due to their status as a T2 capital ship and extreme rareity. On top of the months it will take before they are even available, It will likely take longer to get the skills to fly them. In effect, you will be screwing every alliance in 0.0, but the smaller ones will be screwed even more as they will not be able to afford one easily.

RoCkEt X
Hostile.
PURPLE HELMETED WARRIORS
Posted - 2007.11.02 07:36:00 - [994]
 

Edited by: RoCkEt X on 02/11/2007 07:37:23
ok, page 34 on this thread. i doubt many will read it, but i gotta say. a carrier isnt a solopwnmobile. its just too big, slow, and being capital, it cant move anywhere without assistance. i love the fact that everyone who DOSENT have a carrier thinks they are oh so uber. lemme tell you something.

They are hard to fly.
Managing fighters which lag on launch/scoop
Fighters need telling multiple times.
If a target warps out and your fighters follow, it can be over a minute before they get back.
Fighters struggle to hit a moving target.
Launching light drones to kill frigs is fun, after about 60 seconds you manage to lock one!!!

the nerf will do several things:
1 - put carrier builders out of business
2 - flood contracts with people selling there x-pride and joy.
3 - make capital killing pirates into emo's.
4 - make the dev team wonder why caps arent used in pvp.


P.S. oh yeah TRIAGE. no-one uses it. no-one wants to sit there for 10 mins. if ur enemy cyno's in a dread then ur boned. the tanking bonuses are pathetic, ok you boost/rep insanely fast, but you take about a 6th of that damage when moving above 10m/s. and gun based dreads wouldnt even hit you. i tell ya one thing, if i need a gang mate to assign fighters to, so i can use all my own fighters then OMG. 1.8bil isk in ship, a bil in skills and 6 months of training. ok... reimbursement please??

and just FYI, carriers cant haul now.

Itty 5 + Occator + corp hanger = 70km3. ups, ships cant have cargo anymore. they nerfed that one too. DOH zomg what is going on these days. get me a nerf bat. i'll put it on my carrier and start wacking the nearest station.

the rest of you. some advice.

TRAIN INDUSTRY. they wont nerf it, it makes u isk,

rant over.

/rocket.

OOH EDIT!!!: i forgot. did you all know that a carrier puts out less DPS than a gank fitted hyperion? i did the math.

John McCreedy
Caldari
Eve Defence Force
Posted - 2007.11.02 13:27:00 - [995]
 

What I find interesting is even after 34 pages containing almost nothing other than criticism for the plans where the majority are vehemently against changes to Carriers, CCP go ahead and put them on to SISI anyway. This to me shows a serious lack of respect from CCP towards their paying customers and further proves CCP as a company, have lost touch with their community.

Sidious Cruz
Amarr
The Riot Formation
Posted - 2007.11.02 13:57:00 - [996]
 

Originally by: John McCreedy
What I find interesting is even after 34 pages containing almost nothing other than criticism for the plans where the majority are vehemently against changes to Carriers, CCP go ahead and put them on to SISI anyway. This to me shows a serious lack of respect from CCP towards their paying customers and further proves CCP as a company, have lost touch with their community.



QFT

zoolkhan
Minmatar
Mirkur Draug'Tyr
Ushra'Khan
Posted - 2007.11.02 14:48:00 - [997]
 

Originally by: Fedaykin

Most likely, your not a carrier pilot... btw, dont compare something you have no clue.....is a carrier limited to 5 planes in open war? He can defend him self alone if he as 2. And yes the capt will decide who to attack... So wth your talking about dude ?!


if we compare it to RL carriers Nimitz, or even the old Arc Royal
eve-carriers are sitting ducks.

the arc royal (one of teh first real carriers in human history, british navy)
had a few railguns or something for self defense ...

todays carriers have so many AA and railguns mounted they can lay an anti missile carpet into the air, not to mention other guns - and the sheer amount of different aircraft
taht can go in the air in a moments notice.

even that beast would not leave harbour without an escort fleet that nicely fits into
the computer orchestrated defense system.

however, it is certainly better able to defend itself than a nidhoggur or hel that
cannot even mount a gun..

a) smartbomb the fighters
b) bubble the carrier
c) eat it alive while the pilot can only watch
=
really no need to nerf even more. - at leats not until the encourage teamwork
is met by the right serverside performance to make it enjoyable.

(yesterday we were 80 pilots in a system for a pos siege / defense,
and it took my duo-core, 10 Mbit DSL - powered - battleship
just one minute from one frame to another, after warping to the pos.
thats 1-fpm (frame per MINUTE)

....dont force people into large gangs, until large gangs work.
allow carriers to be solo used until then.






Dirk Goodkill
Posted - 2007.11.02 15:12:00 - [998]
 

I am just awe struck CCPs complete lack of knowledge of things military. I was stationed aboard a carrier for just under a year and have a little bit of insight into the operations of a carrier and the carrier group in general.

First of all a carrier is the heart of the task force. The C&C (command and control) is aboard the carrier where all flight ops are co-ordinated and ordered from. There are no other ships in the carrier group that have any input into where and when aircraft from the carrier go or do.

Second the other ships of the carrier group are their to provide the carrier logistical support from sub protection and missile protection to additional firepower like cruise missiles.

CCP has it completely ass backwards to think that a carrier needs the help of smaller ships to use it fighters. The carrier IS the main offensive weapon that the task force has.

If they think we are going to buy their crapping excuses why they are going to change the way carriers work, they are really delusional.

Get some new programming staff in and fix the lag problems without punishing players that have put in nearly a years time in training to be able to use a carrier and the expense of the carrier and its fighters as well.

Fix the carrier so you can no longer use it as a jump frieghter, but otherwise leave it be.

Remember that EVE is a game supported by its players money and if you screw players around too much they will take their money else where. CCP has said that there are 10,000 carriers in play. If everyone with a carrier said screw this, that $150,000 per month of subscriptions GONE!!!!

Think about that.

BlkRaven
Posted - 2007.11.02 15:39:00 - [999]
 

hmm seems to me that the dev's dont have any clue how their own game works in reality...

the only sollution to not have one player/ship be ubar compared to another is to delete all ships above frigates...

Oh wait then they will realy loose all the long time players, hmmm oh right just lets call it balance and nerf the other ships.Rolling Eyes

BlkRaven
Posted - 2007.11.02 15:42:00 - [1000]
 

Originally by: Dirk Goodkill


Remember that EVE is a game supported by its players money and if you screw players around too much they will take their money else where. CCP has said that there are 10,000 carriers in play. If everyone with a carrier said screw this, that $150,000 per month of subscriptions GONE!!!!

Think about that.


Hmm dont forget most carrier pilots have atleast a cyno alt account too, and mostly another 1 or 2 also. so make it 300-450K per month Twisted Evil

ladylex
Dissonance Corp
FREGE Alliance
Posted - 2007.11.02 16:03:00 - [1001]
 

Edited by: ladylex on 02/11/2007 16:27:29
CCP-
If you're still looking for the reason there is so much negative feedback to your proposed carrier changes as related to other, earlier changes, let me respectfully suggest it's the vast scope of time invested. Most other changes resulted in consequeces that affected players and their game play for a couple months, at worst. We grumbled, retrained, reinvested or otherwise adapted and settled down. These changes however, no matter how restated, affect literally years of our Eve life. Many of us (6-7,000) of us have dedicated a huge chunk of our training and financial resourses, and didn't pursue various other branches of the Eve experiance, in order to focus on that holy grail, the carrier.

We understood what the goal was, whether it was logistics, missions, ratting, hauling, PVP whatever. We accepted the cost in time and effort, and in good faith expected to realize those goals, short of Eve sunsetting. Now that we've spent a large portion of our Eve lives acheiving those goals, you want business as usual, where, in various way of stating it, you say "sorry, this isn't the way we designed it/wanted it/envisioned it, it's breaking/lagging/unfair/unpopular/unbalanced in some aspect and we are now going to change it for the better, in our opinion".

Kudos for actually listening to feedback, but the carrier group here feels that you are simply using that feedback to sugar-coat the changes so they go down easier, without actually changing the medication.

This 100% is your game and you can make it whatever you want --- you've proven that with many fundamental changes in the past. But changes of this magnitude risk critical mass in public opinion and risk a serious break with the player base. I don't pretend to have the right answers, but I submit neither do you as of yet. Thanks for listening.

LL

Hyron
Corp 1 Allstars
The Requiem
Posted - 2007.11.02 22:15:00 - [1002]
 

I think the main problem here is that CCP don't understand how hard we worked for our carriers, nor, that they are not in any way great logistic ships (ecm/damps + lag = useless carrier). We have spent god knows how many hours playing eve trying to get carriers, but all devs have to do is type a command/click a button - and a carrier appears. CCP doesn't understand how much effort has gone into people getting carriers. Saying 'sorry' is pathetic.

I will not accept 'sorry' as an excuse for the product of a year or so being nerfed into oblivion.

So 'sorry' CCP - This is unacceptable

Alina Zalo
Posted - 2007.11.02 23:34:00 - [1003]
 

Edited by: Alina Zalo on 02/11/2007 23:34:04
I dont know if anyone else has posted this, cause his thing is 34 pages long... but here goes

OK i trained Carrier V

I lived in 0.0 for a while in my carrier and i have seen many engagments.

1) Carrier is not a solopwn mobile
case in point - our frieghter got jumped by a gang of 10, mostly t2 cruisers and a battleship, i jumped in to save it, (knowing i probably couldn't but i could tank the ships)
I popped the battleship and a demios ( back then fighters returned at like 10m/s so they all died) freigeht died too, and i tanked them till my support fleet could warp in. but still, had i not had the support fleet, they would have killed me eventally. I was jamed, and my heavy drone supply was almost useless as they could warp in and out at will and or run circles around them. they could have held me down with out lossing a ship once my fighters where gone.

and its only fair a 1.2 bill ships get at least 2 kills in before its defenseless (only cost them about 200 mil)

2) I trained FREAKIN CARRIRER 5 thats over 2 months.. i want that back if CCP nerfs it!!

3) Fighters are 20mil a pop last i checked. And finding people who can and know how to use them and not "fire and forget" is like trying to find a sober person in vegas on free drink night.

CCP stop nerfing everything, thats not the answer..

And understand a Fleet of Anything is going to Wtfpwn. and a fleet of 1 billion isk ships is going to seem overpowered.

I like what people are saying about

###
Make new ships that balance it out, not just nerf nerf nerf!

Pretty soon the game will be nerf.

i am sorry people have fleets of carriers and titans now, i know you wanted them to be more rare.

so make more super duper super ships or something that no one can ever get

Or here is an Idea. just give everyone that had carrier the option of having that traing time back. so if they dont like your nerf, they can have that put in something else.

or give the fighters ammo that they have to redock to reload from your ammo supply, and when you run out, you have to go get more.

guss thats more work for the server thought.

anything but making it so we cant use them.

Typo91
Posted - 2007.11.03 00:02:00 - [1004]
 

Originally by: Princess Jodi
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.


Signed /

TypoNinja
Caldari
Void Angels
The Church.
Posted - 2007.11.03 05:24:00 - [1005]
 

Right, so I'm not even a carrier pilot and I've managed to learn the following;

1. Carriers do not own, if you fly one alone your going to lose it, as noted one good Ewar boat and your multi billion isk investment is scrap. A well fitted Battleship can out DPS it by a good margin, and some battle CRUISERS are capable of tanking it. 5 good battleship pilots are more than enough to kill one, with less half as much isk in terms of ship cost.

2. Carrier logistics in combat are a joke, with the way the lag monster rules fleet combat anything requiring quick reactions is pointless two 15 man gangs going at it have been known to crash nodes let alone capital fleets + support.

3. carrier jump hauling for 0.0. About the only place a carrier can be said to 'shine' its about the only way to reliably get assets out to 0.0 and anyone with at least a semi serious 0.0 presence needs one. That said they don't hold very much, you can't get a battleship in one so in terms of quick reinforcements its quite limited. Plus your available cargo is limited by needing fuel as well.

Add to the fact that you need cyno fields to move the thing (in most cases more than one, which can get really fun if you are travelling through the space of multiple alliances.) And further the point by leaving your cap drained every time you jump means your carrier is a sitting duck between jumps.

The proposed Jump freighter Isn't an alternative to this however despite CCP's claims. Its ridiculous price and obscene skill requirements mean only the richest will even think of one, while its shorter jump range means its actually a worse choice for 0.0 hauling since less jumps is your priority. To make the jump freighter an appealing choice it needs to have a lot more space available, both for stowage and ships, AND it should have a long jump range. Especially as its a purpose built transport ship, NOT having the best jump engines in it is plain ludicrous. As well as an attainable price and skill chart.

And of course CCP's shifting reasons for wanting the change show more of the typical corporate double talk and bull**** than they do of an attempt to keep us, their paying customers happy.

There are serious design flaws in the latest nerf, the most obvious is thus;

You don't think something up and go 'hey this would be cool' (jump freighter) 'too bad there'd be no market for it. I know lets completely screw over our oldest and most loyal player base to create one for it!'.

If theres no market for a jump freighter as is, please don't break what already works fine, make the jump freighter more appealing, give it an even longer range than the carrier for cyno jumps. Give it enough haulage to move battleships and I bet you'll even seem them appear on the front lines. Similarly make it easier to get into. Tech two Capital status is a big hurdle, Carriers are popular despite their shortcomings because of the relative ease of getting them. If skill books are made significantly cheaper then the people looking at carriers now for use as 0.0 haulers may consider a jump freighter instead. At the same time by tweaking the new ship to fit the world instead of tweaking the world to fit your new ship you wont alienate the existing player base, all the carrier people who haul will still be able to, just not as well as those who choose the jump freighter. And balance will be kept, because while the carrier does many things there are options for each of those things to be done better with another ship.

The dev blog makes it sound like a bad thing that a carrier is the swiss army knife of eve, its not. A swiss army knife is very useful. Just extend your metaphor are remember that anything your swiss army knife does can be done better by the tool that was designed for the job.

We're the player base, more importantly from a corporations point of view we're your paying customers, and in a very short amount of time your going to have over 100 pages telling you WE DON'T WANT THIS!

Bobafeit
Rionnag Alba
The Requiem
Posted - 2007.11.03 16:21:00 - [1006]
 

Originally by: TypoNinja


What he said!

R3d Devil
Posted - 2007.11.03 20:40:00 - [1007]
 

as much as i am against the changes people really need to read what those changes are. first off at the bottom it ses to ignore the test server stuff, so stop complaining about that. and seccond if u have a carrier and u jump it somewhere u already have (often YOUR OWN ALT) a squad mate in the system. so u can still field 10 fighters. so in fact unless u have 15 of them now your not actually loosing much in the way of damage dealing potential and thats THE ONLY CHANGE THEY MENTION.

and then if your in a fleet battle u can delegate the fighters to the gang anyway which ppl do now so they dont risk their ship.

Okkie2
Posted - 2007.11.03 22:40:00 - [1008]
 

Originally by: R3d Devil
as much as i am against the changes people really need to read what those changes are. first off at the bottom it ses to ignore the test server stuff, so stop complaining about that. and seccond if u have a carrier and u jump it somewhere u already have (often YOUR OWN ALT) a squad mate in the system. so u can still field 10 fighters. so in fact unless u have 15 of them now your not actually loosing much in the way of damage dealing potential and thats THE ONLY CHANGE THEY MENTION.

and then if your in a fleet battle u can delegate the fighters to the gang anyway which ppl do now so they dont risk their ship.


If nothing is going to change why should it be changed ? Furthermore looking at the devblog they are still going to nerf the carrier one way or the other but there's still not a single good reason i can find why the carrier should be nerfed at all. There are some problems with carriers and motherships, but i don't see any changes which addresses those problems.

The DEVs might better first analyze what the problem is because all the reasons i see in the devblogs so far are not accurate at all. So far they still think a lone carrier is a single PWN mobile so it's pretty clear they haven't flown a carrier in such a situation.

Baljos Arnjak
Posted - 2007.11.04 09:16:00 - [1009]
 

I don't know if this idea has been previously posted, didn't want to read through 35 pages to find out. My idea is, instead of nerfing the number of fighters a carrier itself can deploy, why not change the Fighters skill so that it only affects fighters when delegated to another pilot? That way, when a carrier deploys its fighters itself, it'll be doing less damage vs. how it is now unless they are delegated. It'll still do significant DPS in smaller engagements, but to get it's full effect as a support ship, you would have to delegate. At least this is how I'd do it if it is something that ABSOLUTELY MUST be nerfed, otherwise I'd leave it alone.

As far as the rest of the issues, I think the posters above me have it right. If you're going to take away the ability to do logistics work (IE jump hauling) from carriers, at least make the Jump Freighter worth your while by having a jump range greater than a carrier and the same capacity as a T1 Freighter, maybe just have a higher fuel consumption rate. As it is with this nerf, the only way to do any meaningful haulage is to get a group of regular freighters together and jumpbridge them with a Titan. Not a lot of Alliances can easily do that.

Avangel
Posted - 2007.11.04 10:11:00 - [1010]
 

I don't fly a carrier. I have no capital ship skills, because capital ships are too much of an investment for a casual player like myself. I am through-and-through an af/recon/bc/bs pilot. I don't plan on being in a carrier any time soon.

With that said:

1. Don't nerf carriers.
2. Give Jump Freighters a HUGE jump range and a HUGE cargo capacity. Make them the absolute BEST at what they do.
3. Build T2 capital remote repair ships with super-fast targeting speeds, and just don't let them mount guns/launchers. Make these the BEST at repairing POSes and fleets of ships.
4. Build T2 capital command ships that give massive fleet bonuses. Make these the BEST command platforms out there.
5. Build T2 capital EWAR platforms. Make these the BEST EWAR platforms out there.

You know what would happen if you did this? That's right, less carrier pilots, more people following extreme skillpaths to become capable of flying the ships that are the BEST at what they want to do. Let carriers be the jack of all trades, just raise the bar on what "master" means.

Hell, while we're at it, let's 'rebalance' interceptors. What do you guys think? Maybe increase their sig rad by 4000m, reduce their max velocity to 10m/s, and give them 1 high, 1 medium, and 1 low slot. Then they'll be just as 'useful' as carriers after the nerf.

pedros
Minmatar
Gaia Freelancers
Posted - 2007.11.04 12:10:00 - [1011]
 

hello, friends, enemys and CCP

sorry for my englisch but i give my best:)

iem at last 6 - 7 months skilling carriers, and flying now alrdy one, im tried alrdy solo ganking, with small results. lol
so im better with a CS, shoting peapole, first 2 bills for carrier = bad lock, bad assoult yea very bad, i took 5 fighters and some drones and dont eve kill a domi
^^
he tanked me out, ok my fighter lvl is atm at 4, but i dont learn it before im know ccp dont nerf carriers, dont want spend weeks
reason2 : for 2 bils of isk i can buy 10 cs + moderate fitting so ...
when u lost a carrier u lost many isk
so where u found that carriers now a ueber sologankers??
ok u can do many things with carrier
like hauling, remorepping etc
but that especialy these things to skill and use carrier^^
how u think i can even pwnd local with one carrier LOL ?
sorry that is the best post in 3 years of eve Laughing
maybe u can stop a noobYARRRR!!(dont forgett fitt 5 SBs t2 ^^) in hauler or a BS that want ratt and warpscram him and kill after this, but even if some gankers in local scram u, and call support ur dead ^^ ok ecm drones help out
maybe yes maybe not

another thing is, im lost a IBIS to Dread ^^
how to can a dread with mega beam ueber laser hit me ?
loL ?

hello plase nerf the miners they mined all vedlspar in empire PLS!

Kedrich
Posted - 2007.11.04 12:11:00 - [1012]
 

Edited by: Kedrich on 04/11/2007 15:01:33
Edited by: Kedrich on 04/11/2007 14:59:22
Edited by: Kedrich on 04/11/2007 14:59:00

Thanks CCP for not nerfing carrier immediatelly :)

Baulath
Posted - 2007.11.05 00:43:00 - [1013]
 

I've read all of the posts regarding this topic and I am left nearly without words. CCP seem intent on altering what works, to fix what is not broken. Not only is the idea of a carrier controlling 5 fighters at one time ridiculous, other changes, like the T1 freighter mass change for example, seem set on forcing players to spend more time training more skills and spending more isk.

You have to give CCP credit however, few other large corporations try to repackage the exact same thing and expect the masses to suddenly change their minds about it. With all the talk about listening to the community... Patches like this make one clear point... It's all about the money. Less lag, more players, more subscriptions. I figure when the 10,000 carrier pilots quit we'll have less lag. Problem sorted? Yeah, right.

From what I gather, carriers WILL be nerfed and it's nothing to do with balance. It's all about lag. Drones use more server resources than CCP is willing to allow. We've seen them halved before and we are about to see them halved again. If it was about balance it would be tackled from a more tactful way. This is without exception about the number of drones in the battle field. And with regards to carriers being used as haulers? For the love of all things sane, what did you expect them to be used for? With every gate camped and freighters unable to jump.. (not to mention the mass nerf coming in soon).

I'm babbling because it's late at night, but I must say one more thing! YOU CAN'T FORCE PEOPLE TO USE SOMETHING NEW, BY RUINING WHAT THEY HAVE. How does the mass of a ship change over night?!? (Wrong thread I know, but it's some what related)

B


Zoloro
Posted - 2007.11.05 04:29:00 - [1014]
 

Eve is risk vs reward. Currently, carrier's are still destroyed when they get caught by a strong gang and do not have enough support.

With even the proposed future changes which are not as drastic as the original, it still makes them less desirable.

Many players in Eve, dedicated their entire Eve life to be able to fly a carrier.

Please balance them more by increasing their risk vs reward through ISK cost, rather than nerfing them.

Thank you,

Zoloro

Malarki X
Caldari
ANZAC ALLIANCE
IT Alliance
Posted - 2007.11.05 09:26:00 - [1015]
 

Watched part of Hellmars presentaion on FanFest.

Part that was interesting was - Forums are somewhat useless for comunication with plyers. Because one voice ( CCP ) cant be heard over thousands that are yelling - stop the nerf.

Also - Hellmar stated that once people talked with DEV that posted the Carrier nerf blog, they were convinced thats the right way.

Ok, well Hellmar there is only one problem - if you are participating in EVE Fanfest - you are indeed a fanboy. Wich means it brings you great joy to talk with a DEV. In that ave struck moment - last thing you want to do is insult one of those you admire and / or start a long debate on why this nerf is a horrible idea. Also Fan Fest is realy the last place to discuss such changes.

I agree that people act diferently IRL and on forums. Chest beating on forums, while you are anonimous, and IRL when you are in plain sight are two diferent things. So hunred fans that are ready to pay for enjoyment of youre company are hardly the presentation material for pros and cons of this nerf.

Dont get me wrong - if finance would allow, I would participate there as well. How would I react when talking to a real blood and bones DEV swinging nerf bat like its his epeen in a ***** house ? Probably like most people - humble.

All in all - if you have hundreds of pages on two topics where people complain regarding this nerf, it might not be such a good idea.

Wouldnt you agree ?

Sun Ra
Euphoria Released
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2007.11.05 11:59:00 - [1016]
 

Dont think half the reason given are the real reason for the change

If any of you have been in a fleet battle with ALOT of carriers involved you would know

a) all drones lag the hell out of everyone
b) while everyones lagging the drones are flying around killing stuff with no commands given by the pilot

solopwnmobile thing is very little to do with the change imo

ps im not saying the change is good/bad just i think everyone in this thread has gotton the wrong end of the stick

Clamn8er
Gato Nero
Posted - 2007.11.05 15:19:00 - [1017]
 

Originally by: Sun Ra
Dont think half the reason given are the real reason for the change

If any of you have been in a fleet battle with ALOT of carriers involved you would know

a) all drones lag the hell out of everyone
b) while everyones lagging the drones are flying around killing stuff with no commands given by the pilot

solopwnmobile thing is very little to do with the change imo

ps im not saying the change is good/bad just i think everyone in this thread has gotton the wrong end of the stick


So the solution is ... to increase the number of people on the field, except now with assigned drones? To kill months of skill training and billions of isk? To make small teams unable to field carriers through lack of people, putting them further in the mercy of the ubiquitous blob? Evil or Very Mad

cummon, man Rolling Eyes

Hul'ka
Minmatar
tr0pa de elite
Triumvirate.
Posted - 2007.11.05 21:35:00 - [1018]
 

Originally by: Sun Ra


If any of you have been in a fleet battle with ALOT of carriers involved you would know

a) all drones lag the hell out of everyone
b) while everyones lagging the drones are flying around killing stuff with no commands given by the pilot




here's an idea...
drone and fighters don't auto attack..
Really can't see how assigning fighters would solve that problem...
Does not compute..

Risen Pheonix
Posted - 2007.11.06 00:39:00 - [1019]
 

The carriers and MS are fairly ballanced as they are considering the cost and training. The changes being proposed would only infuriate those who have, are working towards, or have ever wanted a carrier/MS (i.e. your entire customer base). Also, forcing a ship into a cirtain 'role' takes the fun and inginuity out of the game, especially for the players who fly them who typically have the skills for many things, they want a ship that supports all the things they have skills for. Giving a ship an advantage in a cirtain area ensures that most ppl use it that way.
If there even is a problem with the current ballance then the solution should be external to the ships involved. To keep with time honored history, if someone makes something powerful, then someone else figures out a way to exploit its weaknesses and shut it down.
In World War 2 there was a ship made by Germany named the Bizmark that was supposed to be invincible. Its guns were outraguous, and its armor could laugh off most any torpedo. the first time it was encountered, it destroyed two battleships so quickly that it really scared the <bleep> out of the allied forces. The Bizmark was finally sunk because a torpedo-bomber hit it in the rudder, entirely disabling it's ability to steer, all it could do is go in circles until enough allied firepower was gathered to finally sink it.
My suggestion is to make a way for a VERY specialized ship (or group of ships) to make life really dificult for a carrier/MS. In order to keep things fair to the Carrier/MS pilots and the corps/alliances that coughed up the price for these cap ships, this specialized technology should be VERY tricky to use and pretty expensive. This would force carriers to bring people with them for fear of meeting anti-cap ship pirates, etc. As I understand it, some such methods already exist to some degree, if there is an imballance, consider giving those techs a little nudge.
Nerfing existing technology is infuriating and ruins the effect of the game. Nobody ever goes backwards in technology and your customers know that. Nothing ruins the game faster for a player that saving and training for YEARS to get your dream ship only to have it promptly nerfed. What people need is the tools to cambat what is out there. Then when you get your Superweapon there is still some danger lurking out there to keep the game interesting. I am reminded of the game Stratego, the Marshal is kind of the Super-pwnage dude, but if he is attacked by a spy (who is the lowest of all) the spy wins.
One Idea for a new tech would be a link jammer that effectively severs communications between the carrier/MS and its drones/fighters causing the drones to become rougue-ish having to depend on their own pitiful AIs and not recieving new instructions from the Carrier/MS. In a fleet battle such a thing would be of little use because the ship that was jamming would be quickly targeted and killed but a carrier/MS on its own would be much more worried about losing connection with its drones. Just an Idea.
Anyhow, for my sake, please dont nerf things that way again, I almost choked up a lung when I read the proposed nerfs. Whaddya tryin to do? Give people a heart attack?

Turin
Caldari
Body Count Inc.
Cascade Imminent
Posted - 2007.11.06 01:16:00 - [1020]
 

Originally by: CCP Zulupark
Originally by: Fedaykin



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.


See, this is the problem though. Most of us do not think there is ANYTHING TO WORK ON.

No matter what Mr Ovuer says, this can be seen as nothing but a nerf. He should have used the term de-evolution, instead of evolution.

You guys insist there is a problem. Your community insists there is not. Just because your posting in a thread you read what we said, doesnt mean that you are listening to what is said. I think that is obvious.

you guys are insisting on going through with some types of changes with will lower the effectiveness of carriers. There is no other way to look at that, than to call it a "nerf".

This states to me that, no matter what your player base wants, your going to do as you see fit.



Pages: first : previous : ... 30 31 32 33 [34] 35 36 37 38 : 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